Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “current operating point”

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 1,153 records · Page 64
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRS2008

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct differences between the two cases such as locations of shocks/shock reflections and a slightly different impingement point on the wall of the diffuser from the expansion at the exit of the nozzle. Similarly the temperature distribution indicates different flow recirculation patterns in the test cell. Both cases capture all the essential flow phenomena such as the shock-boundary layer interaction, plume expansion, expansion of the first stage ejectors, mixing between the engine plume and the first stage ejector flow and pressurization due to the first stage ejectors. The final paper will discuss thermal loads on the walls of the diffuser and cooling mechanisms investigated.

Allgood, Daniel C.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Proof-of-Concept Experiments on a Gallium-Based Ignitron for Pulsed Power Applications

Ignitrons are electrical switching devices that operate at switching times that are on the order of microseconds, can conduct high currents of thousands of amps, and are capable of holding off tens of thousands of volts between pulses. They consist of a liquid metal pool within an evacuated tube that serves both the cathode and the source of atoms and electrons for an arc discharge. Facing the liquid metal pool is an anode suspended above the cathode, with a smaller ignitor electrode tip located just above the surface of the cathode. The ignitron can be charged to significant voltages, with a potential difference of thousands of volts between anode and cathode. When an ignition pulse is delivered from the ignitor electrode to the cathode, a small amount of the liquid metal is vaporized and subsequently ionized, with the high voltage between the anode and cathode causing the gas to bridge the gap between the two electrodes. The electrons and ions move rapidly towards the anode and cathode, respectively, with the ions liberating still more atoms from the liquid metal cathode surface as a high-current plasma arc discharge is rapidly established. This arc continues in a self-sustaining fashion until the potential difference between the anode and cathode drops below some critical value. Ignitrons have been used in a variety of pulsed power applications, including the railroad industry, industrial chemical processing, and high-power arc welding. In addition, they might prove useful in terrestrial power grid applications, serving as high-current fault switches, quickly shunting dangerous high-current or high-voltage spikes safely to ground. The motivation for this work stemmed from the fact that high-power, high-reliability, pulsed power devices like the ignitron have been used for ground testing in-space pulsed electric thruster technologies, and the continued use of ignitrons could prove advantageous to the future development and testing of such thrusters. Previous ignitron designs have used mercury as the liquid metal cathode, owing to its presence as a liquid at room temperatures and a vapor pressure of 10 Pa (75 mtorr) at room temperature. While these are favorable properties, there are obvious environmental and personal safety concerns with the storage, handling, and use of mercury and its compounds. The purpose of the present work was to fabricate and test an ignitron that used as its cathode an alternate liquid metal that was safe to handle and store. To that end, an ignitron test article that used liquid gallium as the cathode material was developed and tested. Gallium is a metal that has a melting temperature of 29.76 C, which is slightly above room temperature, and a boiling point of over 2,300 C at atmospheric pressure. This property makes gallium the element with the largest relative difference between melting and boiling points. Gallium has a limited role in biology, and when ingested, it will be subsequently processed by the body and expelled rather than accumulating to toxic levels. The next section of this Technical Memorandum (TM) provides background information on the development of mercury-based ignitrons, which serves as the starting point for the development of the gallium-based variant. Afterwards, the experimental hardware and setup used in proof-of-concept testing of a basic gallium ignitron are presented. Experimental data, consisting of discharge voltage and current waveforms as well as high-speed imaging of the gallium arc discharge in the gallium ignitron test article, are presented to demonstrate the efficacy of the concept. Discussion of the data and suggestions on improvements for future iterations of the design are presented in the final two sections of this TM.

Ali, H. K.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Report of the Panel on Propulsion

Propulsion, while conventionally included on the list of important aeronautical disciplines along with aerodynamics, structures, etc., is in itself a systems endeavor, analogous to the engineering of the entire vehicle; indeed propulsion encompasses important aspects of all the other disciplines. In recognition of this fact, the panel focused its discussion on those aspects of the key disciplines that are especially or uniquely important to propulsion. From the initial development of the airplane, the propulsion system has been recognized as one of the pacing technologies. It is perhaps because of the technological disparity between the reciprocating engine and the primitive airframe that the two remained relatively and separate, were developed somewhat independently, usually by different organizations. In recent years, the maturing of the gas turbine power plant and the advance in high-speed airframes have rendered this separation somewhat artificial. The power plant and the airframe now share common structural and aerodynamic elements; as the flight Mach number rises, the degree of interaction increases. By the year 2000, this interdependence will have increased in many respects to a point where independent design may not be practical or possible. During the period since the initiation of the aircraft gas turbine, the solid propellant rocket and the liquid propellant rocket, a vast array of other novel engines have been studied, covering the full spectrum of flight conditions from low subsonic to hypersonic and transatmospheric flight. In each instance, performance limits have been investigated under the assumption that current technology or reasonably foreseeable technology would be available for their development. Among the extensive list of advanced, high-performance concepts and cycles examined are the hypersonic ramjet, the variable cycle, runway-to-orbit airbreathing engine, the ram rocket (airbreathing and rich solid propellant rocket), and the air turborocket. At various times, these systems have come relatively close to meriting development and application. In many instances, limitations of materials and technologies curtailed development. As important and with almost equal frequency, the lack of commercial or military utility of the concept precluded the necessary funding. It is instructive to note that two former items on this list, the turbofan (bypass engine) and the high-speed turboprop, are respectively a mainstay engine and a promising development. In the case of the turbofan, its full potential could not be realized until turbine cooling technology had been developed and new materials developed to permit the construction of transonic fans. In the case of the highspeed turbopropeller engine, not only were the material and turbine technologies needed, but, in addition, the rise in fuel costs provided the impetus to take advantage of its favorable fuel consumption characteristic. As the basic technologies progress and as new missions become attractive, the engines in the foregoing list become candidates for new feasibility studies and further technology development. At the present time, the ram rocket is the prime contender to augment the range of small missiles. Of interest also is the hypersonic ram jet and its logical extension, the runway-to-orbit airbreathing engine. Much of this report deals with the development of current or near-future power plant concepts. First, the motivating factors for aeronautical propulsion research are reviewed as a reminder of the importance of continued effort in a field that has often been characterized as mature. Next, technical areas are discussed in which the panel feels additional research effort is warranted and would lead to the realization of the technological potentials between now and the year 2000. Under these guidelines, new cycles (e.g., isothermal energy exchange) were not considered by the panel. Finally, although facility requirements were not a prime consideration in the current projections, the panel believes that the increasing complexity of propulsion systems; the need for more refined interaction between propulsion system, airframe, and controls; and increasing operation in adverse weather will require test capabilities beyond those now available (see appendix). Enhanced test capability is needed in the areas of propulsion airframe integration and in largescale icing research with proper concurrent treatment of altitude, temperature, and speed.

Kerrebrock, Jack L.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Cloud Computing Methods for Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit Trajectory Design

Complicated mission design problems require innovative computational solutions. As spacecraft depart from a proposed Gateway in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO), recontact analysis is required to avoid risk of collision and ensure safe operations. Escape dynamics from NRHOs are governed by multiple gravitational bodies, yielding a trajectory design space that is exhaustively large. This paper summarizes the recontact analysis for departure from the NRHO and describes how the Deep Space Trajectory Explorer (DSTE) trajectory design software incorporates high performance cloud computing to compute and visualize the orbit design space. Recent focus on exploration missions to cislunar space has kindled accelerated interest in multibody orbit solutions. Trajectory analysis in the presence of multiple gravity fields is complex, and innovative computational tools are needed to simplify complicated design spaces, to generate large quantities of data quickly, and to visualize the output for user accessibility. The Gateway mission is a prime example. The Gateway1 is proposed as a human outpost in deep space. The current baseline orbit for the Gateway is a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) near the Moon.2 The NRHO exists in a regime that experiences the gravitational effects of the Earth and the Moon simultaneously, complicating orbit analysis. The mission design process benefits greatly from updated computational tools for multibody missions like the Gateway. As an example, consider the problem of assessing the risk of collision in an NRHO. As a staging location to missions to the lunar surface and beyond the Earth-Moon system, the Gateway will experience spacecraft and other objects regularly arriving and departing. Departing objects potentially include spent logistics modules, visiting crew vehicles, debris objects, wastewater particles, and cubesats. Each departure is governed by the dynamics of the Gateway orbit and the surrounding dynamical environment. Over time, any unmaintained object in such an orbit eventually departs due to the small instabilities associated with the NRHOs. A separation maneuver speeds the departure from the NRHO, but the effects of the maneuver on the spacecraft behavior depend on the location, magnitude, and direction of the burn. Escape dynamics from the NRHO with regard to these maneuver options open up an enormous potential trajectory design space where subtle changes in input can produce dramatically large changes in the results. Any departing object must avoid recontacting the Gateway as it leaves the lunar vicinity, and a recontact analysis thus involves a significant number of computations and extensive output data. To explore the dynamics of this extensive design space, the Deep Space Trajectory Explorer3 (DSTE) trajectory design software incorporates new High Performance Computing (HPC) services and novel interactive visualizations. This paper details the HPC and cloud infrastructure techniques that are implemented in the DSTE, applying the new capabilities to analysis of recontact risk with the Gateway in NRHO. NEAR RECTILINEAR HALO ORBITS The Gateway is planned to fly in a lunar NRHO as its baseline orbit. The NRHO families of orbits are subsets of the larger halo families, which originate from planar orbits near the L1 and L2 libration points; the Earth-Moon L2 halo family appears in Figure 1. Each halo orbit is perfectly periodic in the Circular Restricted 3-Body Problem (CR3BP) and becomes a quasi-periodic orbit in a higher fidelity ephemeris force model. The NRHOs are defined as those members of the halo family with bounded stability properties;2 they pass near the Moon at perilune and are nearly polar. Families exist with apolunes located both above the lunar north pole and above the lunar south pole; the Gateway is planned to reside in a southern L2 NRHO in a 9:2 resonance with the lunar synodic period. The 9:2 NRHO is characterized by a period of about 6.5 days, a perilune radius of about 3,500 km, and an apolune radius of about 71,000 km; it is strongly affected by the gravity of both the Earth and the Moon simultaneously. This NRHO offers extended communications with assets on the south pole of the Moon,4 as well as low-cost orbit maintenance and attitude control,5 favorable eclipse avoidance properties,6 and inexpensive transfers from Earth and to other destinations.5,7 The NRHO portion of the southern L2 halo family is highlighted in black in Figure 1, and the 9:2 NRHO appears in blue.

Phillips, Sean M.↗
NASA NTRS2020

X-HAB 2020: AR Field Treks Summary and Conclusions

As part of the FY20 X-Hab Challenge, BLiSS sought to create an Augmented Reality (AR) toolkit to help with analog field trek operations under the supervision of the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI). These treks are operational and technical demonstrations at space-like destinations on Earth to test current extra-vehicular activity (EVA) techniques. While BLiSS as an organization has experience studying operational tasks such as this, it has never developed AR software at this scale. For that reason, another team at the University was brought on to work in parallel. The Collaborative Lab for Advancing Work in Space (CLAWS) is a veteran group of the NASA Spacesuit User Interface Technologies for Students (SUITS) challenge in which Hololens displays for astronauts are created within a year. The operational and technological pairing was ideally suited for tackling this problem. The team divided its responsibilities so that BLiSS would handle the research required to shape the project. As this deliverable had an end user, it was decided that interviewing these field geologists and operations specialists would provide the best insight. These interviews paired with literature review would reveal niche applications for AR that remained within feasible bounds. These science-driven EVAs in unknown terrain require more flexible tools than the current generation of EVA assistants. Rather than focus on sequential instructions, there instead needs to be a broad toolkit that's only called upon in specific instances. This AR Toolkit for Lunar Astronauts and Scientists (ATLAS) became the development goal of the project: create a non-intrusive assembly of tools that could be accessed in AR on the field. The current ATLAS design makes use of a geospatially and temporally annotated eld note system called GeoNotes. This allows for data to be collected and coordinated in a way that's synchronized across time, space, and different users. A Mission Control Center (MCC) and Mobile Support Equipment (MSE) were all needed to transport the AR headset into the field with the user. A network infrastructure was designed and set up within the University to enable this functionality. The software is based on a Protocol-Module structure that allows for modular development of each capability. A Protocol Manager coordinates different protocols that make use of modules. Each module tackles a different individual task while the protocol puts each one to use. The protocol manager coordinates when these are called to be used. This software is hosted on a head-mounted display (HMD) with the MCC acting as support from afar. While the software would be unit-tested at each level and each hardware component verified, a final demonstration would serve to prove the system's capabilities: an analog field trek. The team would prepare to support a user in a remote location from the MCC back at the University. A local area near campus would be tested before going out to do sample field geology further away. This unfortunately became impossible with the arrival of COVID-19. Access to all of the facilities to complete the project as planned were shut down. Our team was scattered across the globe and forced to complete the rest virtually. Adjustments were made to produce a small virtual concept in Adobe XD in the meantime. Even digital surveys were created based on the NASA task-load index (TLX) originally intended for testing actual users. The goal shifted towards completing software and getting feedback on the user interfaces (UI) and user experiences (UX). This team has reformed in response to COVID and its focus has shifted to what can be done remotely. There is still an intention to finish the original deliverable described in this report. The work has been expanded beyond the original X-Hab challenge and has instead become its own research e ort to be continued afterwards. This report collects the processes and knowledge gained from a year of studying and working at this problem with two teams. It should preserve it for the time until the world returns to normal and work can resume. CLAWS will be taking over full responsibility from that point forward, eventually surpassing the original needs of the project. While this document captures the work done towards an eventual end, the CLAWS team has written their own proposal alongside it. It outlines a new future for ATLAS beyond X-Hab, BLiSS, and hopefully beyond COVID-19. This project began as a vague goal hoping to place a new technology into the unique setting of exploration science. The project has since comfortably taken root and will hopefully bloom over the next year.

Alex Sena↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗
NASA NTRS2014

High Performance EVA Glove Collaboration: Glove Injury Data Mining Effort

Human hands play a significant role during extravehicular activity (EVA) missions and Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) training events, as they are needed for translating and performing tasks in the weightless environment. It is because of this high frequency usage that hand- and arm-related injuries and discomfort are known to occur during training in the NBL and while conducting EVAs. Hand-related injuries and discomforts have been occurring to crewmembers since the days of Apollo. While there have been numerous engineering changes to the glove design, hand-related issues still persist. The primary objectives of this study are therefore to: 1) document all known EVA glove-related injuries and the circumstances of these incidents, 2) determine likely risk factors, and 3) recommend ergonomic mitigations or design strategies that can be implemented in the current and future glove designs. METHODS: The investigator team conducted an initial set of literature reviews, data mining of Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) databases, and data distribution analyses to understand the ergonomic issues related to glove-related injuries and discomforts. The investigation focused on the injuries and discomforts of U.S. crewmembers who had worn pressurized suits and experienced glove-related incidents during the 1980 to 2010 time frame, either during training or on-orbit EVA. In addition to data mining of the LSAH database, the other objective of the study was to find complimentary sources of information such as training experience, EVA experience, suit-related sizing data, and hand-arm anthropometric data to be tied to the injury data from LSAH. RESULTS: Past studies indicated that the hand was the most frequently injured part of the body during both EVA and NBL training. This study effort thus focused primarily on crew training data in the NBL between 2002 and 2010. Of the 87 recorded training incidents, 19 occurred to women and 68 to men. While crew ages ranged from thirties to fifties, the age category most affected was in the forties range. Incident rate calculations (incidents per 100 training runs) revealed that the 2002, 2003, and 2004 time periods registered the highest reported incident rate levels (3.4, 6.1, and 4.1 respectively) when compared to the following years (all ≤ 1.0). In addition to general hand-arm discomfort being the highest reported result from training, specific types of hand injuries or symptoms included erythema, fingernail delamination, abrasions, muscle soreness/fatigue, paresthesia, bruising, blanching, and edema. Specific body locations most affected by hand injuries included the metacarpophalangeal joints, fingernails, finger crotches, fingers in general, interphalangeal joints, and fingertips. Causes of injuries reported in the LSAH data were primarily attributed to the forces that the gloved hands were exposed to due to hand intensive tasks and/or poor glove sizing. DISCUSSION: Although the age data indicate that most injuries are reported by male crewmembers in their forties, that is also the dominant gender and age range of most EVA crew therefore it is not an unexpected finding. Age and gender analysis will continue as more details on the uninjured population is accrued. While there is a reasonable mechanism to link training quantity to injury, the results were inconsistent and point to the need for a consistent method of suit-related injury screening and documentation. For instance, the high-incident rate levels for the years 2002 to 2004 could be attributed to a comprehensive medical review of crewmembers post-NBL EVA training that occurred from July 19, 2002 to January 16, 2004. Furthermore, there could have been increased awareness from an investigation at the NBL. These investigations may have temporarily increased the fidelity of reported injuries and discomforts during these dates as compared to surrounding years, when injury signs and symptom were no longer actively being investigated but rather voluntarily reported. Data mining for possible mechanistic factors continues and includes more detailed training timelines, hand anthropometry, and suit sizing information. The limited published data looking at hand-arm anthropometry correlated hand-anthropometry metrics with injuries stemming from glove design and operation. Future work will include further evaluation of body sizing and fit in relation to hand injury incidents.

Reid, C. R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Orbit Determination of Spacecraft in Earth-Moon L1 and L2 Libration Point Orbits

The ARTEMIS mission, part of the THEMIS extended mission, is the first to fly spacecraft in the Earth-Moon Lissajous regions. In 2009, two of the five THEMIS spacecraft were redeployed from Earth-centered orbits to arrive in Earth-Moon Lissajous orbits in late 2010. Starting in August 2010, the ARTEMIS P1 spacecraft executed numerous stationkeeping maneuvers, initially maintaining a lunar L2 Lissajous orbit before transitioning into a lunar L1 orbit. The ARTEMIS P2 spacecraft entered a L1 Lissajous orbit in October 2010. In April 2011, both ARTEMIS spacecraft will suspend Lissajous stationkeeping and will be maneuvered into lunar orbits. The success of the ARTEMIS mission has allowed the science team to gather unprecedented magnetospheric measurements in the lunar Lissajous regions. In order to effectively perform lunar Lissajous stationkeeping maneuvers, the ARTEMIS operations team has provided orbit determination solutions with typical accuracies on the order of 0.1 km in position and 0.1 cm/s in velocity. The ARTEMIS team utilizes the Goddard Trajectory Determination System (GTDS), using a batch least squares method, to process range and Doppler tracking measurements from the NASA Deep Space Network (DSN), Berkeley Ground Station (BGS), Merritt Island (MILA) station, and United Space Network (USN). The team has also investigated processing of the same tracking data measurements using the Orbit Determination Tool Kit (ODTK) software, which uses an extended Kalman filter and recursive smoother to estimate the orbit. The orbit determination results from each of these methods will be presented and we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages associated with using each method in the lunar Lissajous regions. Orbit determination accuracy is dependent on both the quality and quantity of tracking measurements, fidelity of the orbit force models, and the estimation techniques used. Prior to Lissajous operations, the team determined the appropriate quantity of tracking measurements that would be needed to meet the required orbit determination accuracies. Analysts used the Orbit Determination Error Analysis System (ODEAS) to perform covariance analyses using various tracking data schedules. From this analysis, it was determined that 3.5 hours of DSN TRK-2-34 range and Doppler tracking data every other day would suffice to meet the predictive orbit knowledge accuracies in the Lissajous region. The results of this analysis are presented. Both GTDS and ODTK have high-fidelity environmental orbit force models that allow for very accurate orbit estimation in the lunar Lissajous regime. These models include solar radiation pressure, Earth and Moon gravity models, third body gravitational effects from the Sun, and to a lesser extent third body gravitational effects from Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, and Mars. Increased position and velocity uncertainties following each maneuver, due to small execution performance errors, requires that several days of post-maneuver tracking data be processed to converge on an accurate post-maneuver orbit solution. The effects of maneuvers on orbit determination accuracy will be presented, including a comparison of the batch least squares technique to the extended Kalman filter/smoother technique. We will present the maneuver calibration results derived from processing post-maneuver tracking data. A dominant error in the orbit estimation process is the uncertainty in solar radiation pressure and the resultant force on the spacecraft. An estimation of this value can include many related factors, such as the uncertainty in spacecraft reflectivity and surface area which is a function of spacecraft orientation (spin-axis attitude), uncertainty in spacecraft wet mass, and potential seasonal variability due to the changing direction of the Sun line relative to the Earth-Moon Lissajous reference frame. In addition, each spacecraft occasionally enters into Earth or Moon penumbra or umbra and these shadow crossings reduche solar radiation force for several hours. The effects of these events on orbit determination accuracy will be presented. In order to plan for upcoming stationkeeping maneuvers, the maneuver planning team must take the current orbit estimate, propagate it forward to the planned maneuver time, and determine the optimal maneuver to maintain the Lissajous orbit for one or more revolutions. The propagation is performed using a Runge-Kutta 7/8 integrator and typically the position and velocity uncertainty increases with propagation time, increasing the overall uncertainty of the orbit state at the maneuver execution time. The effect of orbit knowledge uncertainty on stationkeeping operations will be presented.

Woodard, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Delivery for Smallsats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed CubeSats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the CubeSats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth- Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Opportunities for SmallSats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed cubesats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the cubesats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the 2 Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth-Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Scalar Atomic Defect-Based Solid-State Self-calibrating Magnetometer (3SM) for Space Plasma Analysis

The Earth’s magnetosphere is a system of multiple, co-located particle populations interacting via plasma waves. Things to understand are driving processes, radiation belt and ring current issues, auroral physics, internal plasma processes, and magnetosphere-ionosphere mapping issues. These plasma-physics processes enable the Earth’s magnetosphere to evolve in response to temporal changes in the solar wind and they underlie the phenomena of space weather, which impacts spacecraft systems, astronauts, radio communications, and ground based electric-power grids. The objective of 3SM is to measure magnetic field strength and to calibrate the Vector Magnetometer (VM) device to maintain absolute accuracy during a mission. The 3SM features make the instrument preferably suited not only for the traditional role of scalar magnetometers as absolute references for the calibration of the on-board vector instruments, but also for extended operational capacities, such as higher frequency scalar measurements (of potential interest for magnetosphere studies for the low frequency part of the spectrum) or autonomous scalar / vector operations. Diamond has been the solid-state platform of choice for quantum device technologies for some time, however, it suffers from difficulties such as scalability, integration, and cost. While the diamond platform is very useful for quantum technologies, further development is needed to make it viable. The material platform of choice for NASA Glenn’s Quantum Sensing And Spin Physics (Q-SASP) is silicon carbide (SiC). This is due to the much higher industry development of the SiC material platform for high-power and high-temperature electronics. It leverages both the decades-long SiC development expertise and infrastructure at NASA Glenn and its growing capabilities in quantum metrology. To make SiC devices usable for quantum technologies such as quantum sources, a much deeper understanding of defects is needed. Q-SASP is developing quantum metrology capabilities to evaluate the energy structure, defect formation energy, band structure augmentation, generation/recombination rates, and limits of dipole-dipole coupling in non-metal implanted SiC devices. This can be achieved by analysis of zero-field splitting, low-field resonance, and singlet-triplet mixing through various forms of Electrically Detectable Magnetic Resonance (EDMR) and Near-Zero Field Magnetic Resonance (NZFMR) spectroscopy. This work will discuss recent system developments, device developments, computational modeling, and spectroscopy results and analysis of defects created by non-metal implantations in SiC devices. The defect formation energies of V Si ,V C , V C V Si , N C V Si , N Si , N C in 4H-SiC are previously reported values in other research [2]-[3]. The defect formation energies of PSi and PC were calculated in GPAW [fig 1A]. The basic underlying mechanism of the zero-field phenomenon is the mixing of singlet and triplet states [4]-[5]. In most spin-dependent transport, two electron spins are involved, and thus one must consider each of their interactions with the field. We investigated the electronic and magnetic properties of 4H-SiC and 6H-SiC. The defect formation energy helps us determine what types of defects we are observing in the SiC EDMR experiment. They have very low formation energy (it is negative). The phosphorus substitution in 4H-SiC is a very stable defect. The band diagrams provide us with vital information about how the electronic properties of SiC (such as band gap) change as we add non-metal defects. The zero-field splitting parameters allow us to study the inflection point in the NZFMR [fig 1B]. We clearly observed zero-field splitting. We also noted that the zero-field splitting remained constant with changing bias. We aspect it zero-field splitting to remain constant while the hyperfine and exchange interaction perturbations shift under the influence of an external magnetic field. This is the essence of quantum magnetometry and self-calibration.

space plasma↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Lab Rapid Analytical Detection of Lunar Volatiles By Universal Gas Analyzer With Comparison to GC-MS System

Introduction: The curation of permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) [1] on the lunar surface is centered around studies based upon the observed volatiles from the LCROSS mission [2]. The rapid detection of important volatile gases and vapors present in planetary bodies and Astromaterials by a standalone analytical device is an area of intense research interest in our group and Planetary Exploration & Astromaterials Research Laboratory (PEARL) facility and this work is relevant to the future preparation of viable lunar simulants for testing curation efforts down the road. The groundbreaking results obtained from the LCROSS Mission [2] open the requirements for the direct detection of volatiles present in regolith materials collected from the lunar surface. The mass spectrometry of volatile chemicals is a general technique that utilizes a set of instruments that creates charged ions from a gaseous chemical species and measures the intensities vs. mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) [3]. In this context, we discuss in-lab experimental results and procedures for rapid qualitative analysis of main LCROSS volatiles (water, H2S, NH3, CO2, and CH3OH) by a Universal Gas Analyzer (UGA) instrument. Additionally, the instrument performance was evaluated by measuring the isotopic abundance ratio of atmospheric Ar-40 to Ar-36 present in room air since, argon is a relevant gas in planetary studies as it can provide an insight and reference point to isotope studies [4]. Additional, cross comparisons were attempted and made between the two instruments to develop a robust analytical technique by comparing mass spectral data for H2S headspace samples with a Trace-1310/ ISQ 7000 (ThermoFisher Scientific.) GC-MS system. Background: The benchtop UGA System is equipped with an SRS UGA 300 quadrupole mass spectrometer designed and built by Stanford Research Systems [5]. This system can be configured for several types of gaseous chemical analysis. The inlet line continuously samples gases at low flow rates (several milliliters per minute) through a capillary limiting the intake pressure making the instrument ideal for online analysis of select gases and/or room atmosphere. Moreover, in our current UGA system, a change in composition at the inlet can be detected in about 200 milliseconds and a complete spectrum is acquired (for a range of 1-100 amu) in under 45 sec with masses measured at rates up to 25 msec per point [5]. This system provides a quick upstream analytical data that we can then compare to results obtained by our GC-MS system. Sample Preparation: Small volume (2-4 mL) of analyte sample was taken in a 10 mL glass vial and sealed with a crimped cap and purged with pure Ar or N2 gas to displace air from the top. The headspace sample was scanned by the UGA instrument at analog, histogram, and pressure vs. time modes. The isotopic abundance ratio for 40Ar-to-36Ar was estimated by measuring partial pressure vs. time scans and setting the mass at 40 and 36 respectively. Results and Discussions: In this work, we have investigated the applicability of the UGA system by qualitative analysis of a series of LCROSS volatiles measured individually. Fig. 1 demonstrates a set of vertically offset spectra for the partial pressures measured as a function of mass-to-charge (m/z) ratios. The average acquisition time for each spectrum was less than a minute suggesting that the UGA system is ideal for quick analysis of geochemical volatiles. For the cross-comparison, we analyzed an H2S headspace sample by a Trace-1310/ISQ-7000 system and compared mass spectral data with previously measured UGA histogram scan data (Fig. 2). In both cases, major peak positions are the same, however, the intensities of fragment ions ([1H132S]+ and [32S]+) are higher for UGA suggesting that the fragment ionization process is stronger in UGA compared to that of GC-MS. To investigate how the integrated area under each chromatogram varies with the headspace sample volume, a set of five H2S headspace samples with increasing volumes was analyzed by the GC-MS system (Fig. 3, inset). A small volume (e.g., 200 to 1000 µL) of H2S/H2O vapor was withdrawn from a 20 mL stock sample vial containing ~5 mL of 0.4% H2S in water by a gas-tight syringe and added to another 20 mL vial filled with argon and analyzed by the GC-MS system. Finally, the UGA detector sensitivity was evaluated by calculating the atmospheric 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratio in room air by running a partial pressure vs. time scan with setting the atomic mass at 40, and 36. Fig. 4(a) shows a ~25 min duration “P vs. time” scan for 40Ar (plot for 36Ar is not shown). The partial pressure values (~100 points) were corrected by subtracting the corresponding background pressure value for 37Ar and utilized to calculate 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratios as shown by Fig. 4b. The average isotopic abundance ratio is ~306 with a 2*STDEV ~13. This abundance ratio is significantly close to the previously reported value of 298.56 [6] and the ratio obtained by our GC-MS system (303 for a UHP grade Ar sample). Conclusions: Our study strongly evidenced that the benchtop UGA system is a valuable analytical tool for the detection of major LCROSS volatiles. The rapid scanning capability, the inexpensiveness of the whole system, and impressive detection sensitivity prove its worthiness as an essential device for advanced geochemical applications. Moreover, cross comparisons with the GC-MS provide important bridges into advanced curatorial efforts into the future. References: [1] Bickel, V.T., et al. (2021) Nat Commun 12, 5607. [2] Colaprete, A., et al. (2010) Science, 330, 463-468. [3] Glavin, D. P. et al. (2012) 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1-11. [4] Willett, C. D., et al. (2022) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 329, 119-134. [5] Operation Manual and Programming Reference. (2018) Universal gas Analyzers, Stanford Research Systems. [6] Lee, J. Y., et al. (2006) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 4507–4512. Notes: (4 figures are attached with text as shown by the attached file)

Curation↗
NASA NTRS2000

Maneuver Design and Calibration for the Genesis Spacecraft

Genesis is the fifth mission selected as part of NASA's Discovery Program. The objective of Genesis is to collect solar wind samples for a period of approximately two years while in a halo orbit about the Earth-Sun L I point. At the end of this period, the samples are to be returned to a specific recovery point on the Earth for subsequent analysis. This goal has never been attempted before and presents a formidable challenge in terms of mission design and operations, particularly planning and execution of propulsive maneuvers. To achieve a level of cost-effectiveness consistent with a Discovery-class mission, the Genesis spacecraft design was adapted to the maximum extent possible from designs used on earlier missions, such as Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) and Stardust, another sample collection mission. The spacecraft design for Genesis is shown. Spin stabilization was chosen for attitude control, in lieu of three-axis stabilization, with neither reaction wheels nor accelerometers included. This precludes closed-loop control of propulsive maneuvers and implies that any attitude changes, including spin changes and precessions, will behave like translational propulsive maneuvers and affect the spacecraft trajectory. Moreover, to minimize contamination risk to the samples collected, all thrusters were placed on the side opposite the sample collection canister. The orientation and characteristics of thrusters are indicated. For large maneuvers (>2.5 m/s), two 5 lbf thrusters will be used for delta v, with precession to the burn attitude, followed by spin-up from 1.6 to 10 rpm before the burn and spin down to 1.6 rpm afterwards, then precession back to the original spin attitude. For small maneuvers (<2.5 m/s), no spin change is needed and four 0.2 lbf thrusters are used for Av. Single or double 360 deg. precession changes are required whenever the desired delta v falls inside the two-way turn circle (about 0.4 m/s) based on the mass properties, spin rate and lever arm lengths based on thruster locations. In such instances, delta v resulting from spacecraft precession cannot be used effectively as a component of the desired delta v, and must therefore be removed by precessing at least one complete revolution around the turn circle. To eliminate cross-track execution errors, a second revolution in the opposite direction would also be performed. This paper will address the design of propulsive maneuvers in light of the aforementioned challenges and other constraints. Maneuver design will be performed jointly by the Navigation Team at JPL and the Spacecraft Team at LMA, based on the process indicated . Typical maneuver timelines will be presented which address considerations introduced by attitude changes. These include nutation, which is introduced by precessing or spinning down and must be given sufficient time to damp out prior to execution of subsequent events, as well as sun and earth pointing constraints, which must be considered to ensure sufficient spacecraft power and to minimize telecommunications interruptions, respectively. The paper will include a description of how individual propulsive maneuvers are resolved into components to account for delta v from translational burns and spacecraft attitude changes required to carry out such maneuvers. Contributions to maneuver delta v arising from attitude changes, based on mass properties for the period just after launch, are indicated. Similar curves will be presented spanning all mission phases from launch through return. A set of closed-form equations for resolving maneuver components, base on a specific delta v required for correction or deterministic changes to the spacecraft trajectory will be presented, as well. In addition to nominal maneuvers, special calibration maneuvers are planned to improve open-loop modeling of maneuvers and to reduce execution errors. Uncalibrated execution errors are indicated. Such errors could be reduced by 50% or more over the course of the mission. Special calibrations are of particular importance for the return leg of the mission, since the sample canister must be returned to a specific location within the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) for mid-air retrieval. An entry angle tolerance of no less than +/- 0.08 deg. is required to achieve this objective. Biasing of the final return maneuvers coupled with a specific maneuver mode to use a series of well-characterized spin changes to effect these maneuvers is part of the current Genesis baseline mission plan. Another important objective of calibrations is to better characterize precession maneuvers. Such maneuvers are part of most propulsive maneuvers, but are also required periodically to maintain sun-pointing for power or daily during solar-wind pointing during collection periods. Although relatively small, such maneuvers will have a significant cumulative impact on orbit determination, particularly in the halo portion of the mission. The current mission design also calls for three stationkeeping maneuvers during each halo orbit of approximately six months duration. These stationkeeping maneuvers may be sufficiently small that single or double 360 deg. precession changes may be required. Because there are no accelerometers on board the spacecraft, calibration can only be performed with the aid of ground-based radiometric tracking. To establish a high degree of accuracy in characterizing the magnitude of burns, the spacecraft spin axis should be along the line of sight to the Earth, providing Doppler measurements with <1 mm/sec accuracy in S-Band. Emission constraints allow such alignment only during certain portions of the mission when the Earth-spacecraft-sun geometry is favorable. The impact of precessions, or burns at times when geometry is not favorable, can be assessed by reconstruction of the spacecraft trajectory using tracking arcs of several days before and after the event.

Williams, Kenneth E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Global 3D Data Visualization and Analysis Platform with Advanced Machine Learning Capabilities in Support of Lunar Exploration

Introduction: The science goals for NASA’s Artemis program include: a) Understanding the character and origin of lunar polar volatiles, b) Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment and c) Investigating and mitigating exploration risks. The permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) on the Lunar south pole are expected to host large quantities of water-ice and volatiles that are important for sustainable Lunar exploration. There are several missions such as onboard Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter (KPLO: Korean name Danuri) with onboard ShadowCam camera, Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One [4], and other efforts underway to obtain high resolution topographic, minerals, volatiles and other information on the moon. We envision a need in immediate future for platforms to integrate these data sets, provide rendering and visualization capabilities in the context of a 3D Lunar globe for easier information access and analysis. NASA's Celestial Mapping System (CMS) is developed to address the need for 3D tools for planetary science investigations, mission planning, in-situ operations, in a 3D-first design constructed around a unified view of a planetary globe. At present CMS provides many critical functionalities that include: 1) equipment planning and optimized placement on Lunar surface 2) line-of-sight (LOS) analysis 3) powerful measurement tools based on 3D terrain with realistic 3D models to represent rovers, astronauts and equipment 4) visualization of derived mapping products (e.g. resource maps), and 5) a data engine for hosting new observations that are not available in other contemporary lunar data tools. Planetary Data Ingestion: CMS can consume and analyze data from locally hosted and external third party sources. It is compatible with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) data and file standards and currently integrates datasets from the Astrogeology Science Center of USGS. This includes global and local data acquired from NASA (LRO, Clementine, Lunar Orbiter) and JAXA (SELENE/Kaguya), with capability of integrating more datasets. In addition, users can specify other WMS-hosted data endpoints, which CMS can then query and stream data from automatically. To set-up an automated process for ingestion and accurate rendering, visualization and analysis of external 3rd party planetary datasets within CMS, we initiated the process of ingesting unique dataset of super-enhanced images of the permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) at the lunar poles which were produced by the Hyper-effective nOise Removal U-net Software (HORUS) tool. This tool was developed to enhance the extremely low-light images of the interior of PSRs and provide the ability to see within these regions at and discern surface features (i.e. boulders and craters) down to 3 meters in size. We focused on the Nobile region on the Lunar south pole, selected site for VIPER mission and stitched several images to create a high-resolution map within one of the PSR of Nobile crater. Figure 1 shows the dark PSR zone form the original NAC layer of LRO as the base layer (left image) and the illuminated areas within that crater (center) which was created by ingesting and merging several of HORUS generated images. At present we employ a semi-automated process to ensure spatial accuracy and merger of several overlapping zones. However, we are in the process of completely automating this process by employing AI based techniques that would rank, sort, and stack the images based on their information density. The georectification of the images would employ selected features. Analysis on Ingested Planetary Datasets: Once an external planetary data-set is successfully ingested, georectified and merged seamlessly as a data-layer; CMS’ numerous analysis tools can be used on this data. A Line of Sight (LOS) tool has been developed for CMS which analyzes terrain profiles and obstructions to determine visibility for remote observers. Figure 1 (right image) shows the viewshed analysis on the same PSR in the Nobile region. The yellow pin shows the observer location outside the PSR. The yellow area shows the visible part of PSR. The obstructed area with no visibility for the observer is shown in red. The Measurements tool allows the user to take area and distance measurements of features on the terrain using various shapes. Measurement type can be specified in a number of ways: Line, Path, Polygon, Circle, Ellipse, Square, Rectangle or Freehand. Once the shape is specified, elevation information can then be extracted along each of these shapes. Figure 2 (left) shows the measurements performed on a crater n illuminated PSR in Nobile region. The equipment placement tool allows the user to place a 3D equipment model at a desired location and analyze its coverage area. The equipment placement tool is coupled with LOS to determine the coverage. Figure 2 (right) shows an equipment placed on the Lunar terrain and it’s coverage area. The red rays are blocked sight lines and the green rays are non-obstructed sight lines with the cyan lines showing the point of intersection with the terrain. More details are provided in the video demonstrations in Reference 5. Overcoming Polar Distortions: 3D geospatial applications exhibit significant distortions in polar imagery due to several reasons: 1) distortions in the source imagery, 2) incompatible tessellation algorithms at the poles, and 3) map projections. We are leveraging new tessellation algorithms and reprojecting data using projections that are better suited for Lunar poles. The goal is to seamlessly switch to polar projections while maintaining 3D view and navigation.

Maps↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Global 3D Data Visualization and Analysis Platform With Advanced Machine Learning Capabilities in Support of Lunar Exploration

Introduction: The science goals for NASA’s Artemis program include: a) Understanding the character and origin of lunar polar volatiles, b) Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment and c) Investigating and mitigating exploration risks [1]. The permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) on the Lunar south pole are expected to host large quantities of water-ice and volatiles that are important for sustainable Lunar exploration [2]. There are several missions such as onboard Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter (KPLO: Korean name Danuri) with onboard ShadowCam camera [3], Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One [4], and other efforts underway to obtain high resolution topographic, minerals, volatiles and other information on the moon. We envision a need in immediate future for platforms to integrate these data sets, provide rendering and visualization capabilities in the context of a 3D Lunar globe for easier information access and analysis. NASA's Celestial Mapping System (CMS) [5] is developed to address the need for 3D tools for planetary science investigations, mission planning, in-situ operations, in a 3D-first design constructed around a unified view of a planetary globe. At present CMS provides many critical functionalities that include: 1) equipment planning and optimized placement on Lunar surface 2) line-of-sight (LOS) analysis 3) powerful measurement tools based on 3D terrain with realistic 3D models to represent rovers, astronauts and equipment 4) visualization of derived mapping products (e.g. resource maps), and 5) a data engine for hosting new observations that are not available in other contemporary lunar data tools [5, 7]. Planetary Data Ingestion: CMS can consume and analyze data from locally hosted and external third party sources. It is compatible with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) data and file standards and currently integrates datasets from the Astrogeology Science Center of USGS. This includes global and local data acquired from NASA (LRO, Clementine, Lunar Orbiter) and JAXA (SELENE/Kaguya), with capability of integrating more datasets. In addition, users can specify other WMS-hosted data endpoints, which CMS can then query and stream data from automatically. To set-up an automated process for ingestion and accurate rendering, visualization and analysis of external 3rd party planetary datasets within CMS, we initiated the process of ingesting unique dataset of super-enhanced images of the permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) at the lunar poles which were produced by the Hyper-effective nOise Removal U-net Software (HORUS) tool [8]. This tool was developed to enhance the extremely low-light images of the interior of PSRs and provide the ability to see within these regions at and discern surface features (i.e. boulders and craters) down to 3 meters in size. We focused on the Nobile region on the Lunar south pole, selected site for VIPER mission and stitched several images to create a high-resolution map within one of the PSR of Nobile crater. Figure 1 shows the dark PSR zone form the original NAC layer of LRO as the base layer (left image) and the illuminated areas within that crater (center) which was created by ingesting and merging several of HORUS generated images. At present we employ a semi-automated process to ensure spatial accuracy and merger of several overlapping zones. However, we are in the process of completely automating this process by employing AI based techniques that would rank, sort, and stack the images based on their information density. The georectification of the images would employ selected features. Analysis on Ingested Planetary Datasets: Once an external planetary data-set is successfully ingested, georectified and merged seamlessly as a data-layer; CMS’ numerous analysis tools can be used on this data. A Line of Sight (LOS) tool has been developed for CMS which analyzes terrain profiles and obstructions to determine visibility for remote observers [5,6]. Figure 1 (right image) shows the viewshed analysis on the same PSR in the Nobile region. The yellow pin shows the observer location outside the PSR. The yellow area shows the visible part of PSR. The obstructed area with no visibility for the observer is shown in red. The Measurements tool allows the user to take area and distance measurements of features on the terrain using various shapes. Measurement type can be specified in a number of ways: Line, Path, Polygon, Circle, Ellipse, Square, Rectangle or Freehand. Once the shape is specified, elevation information can then be extracted along each of these shapes. Figure 2 (left) shows the measurements performed on a crater n illuminated PSR in Nobile region. The equipment placement tool allows the user to place a 3D equipment model at a desired location and analyze its coverage area. The equipment placement tool is coupled with LOS to determine the coverage. Figure 2 (right) shows an equipment placed on the Lunar terrain and it’s coverage area. The red rays are blocked sight lines and the green rays are non-obstructed sight lines with the cyan lines showing the point of intersection with the terrain. More details are provided in the video demonstrations in Reference 5. Overcoming Polar Distortions: 3D geospatial applications exhibit significant distortions in polar imagery due to several reasons: 1) distortions in the source imagery, 2) incompatible tessellation algorithms at the poles, and 3) map projections. We are leveraging new tessellation algorithms and reprojecting data using projections that are better suited for Lunar poles. The goal is to seamlessly switch to polar projections while maintaining 3D view and navigation.

Maps↗