SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
The Mission And Computing Support (MACS) Contractor in accordance with contract number 958226 shall provide engineering, operations, and maintenance support to JPL core systems and Flight Projects.
The Library, Archives, and Records Section (LARS) will host its annual Open House for JPL employees and on-site contractors Tuesday, June 27 through Thursday, June 29, 2000.
The goal for EIS File Service is to develop and deploy a service which encourages all JPL employees and contractors to use DFS to effiently share files, publish web pages, & access tools.
This Final Report serves as an executive summary of the Prometheus Project's activities and deliverables from November 2002 through September 2005. It focuses on the challenges from a technical and management perspective, what was different and innovative about this project, and identifies the major options, decisions, and accomplishments of the Project team as a whole. However, the details of the activities performed by DOE NR and its contractors will be documented separately in accordance with closeout requirements of the DOE NR and consistent with agreements between NASA and NR.
The Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD) has been in the systems analysis business line supporting National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aeronautics, exploration, space operations and science since the 1960 s. Our current organization structure is shown in Figure 1. SACD mission can be summed up in the following statements: 1. We conduct advanced concepts for Agency decision makers and programs. 2. We provide aerospace systems analysis products such as mission architectures, advanced system concepts, system and technology trades, life cycle cost and risk analysis, system integration and pre-decisional sensitive information. 3. Our work enables informed technical, programmatic and budgetary decisions. SACD has a complement of 114 government employees and approximately 50 on-site contractors which is equally split between supporting aeronautics and exploration. SACD strives for technical excellence and creditability of the systems analysis products delivered to its customers. The Directorate office is continuously building market intelligence and working with other NASA centers and external partners to expand our business base. The Branches strive for technical excellence and credibility of our systems analysis products by seeking out existing and new partnerships that are critical for successful systems analysis. The Directorates long term goal is to grow the amount of science systems analysis business base.
The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.
This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents formal NASA technical reports, papers published in technical journals, and presentations by Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) personnel FY 2004. It also includes papers of MSFC contractors. After being announced in STAR, all NASA series reports may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The information in this TM maybe of value to the scientific and engineering community in determining what information has been published and what is available.
This report selectively summarizes NASA Glenn Research Center's research and technology accomplishments for fiscal year 2005. It comprises 126 short articles submitted by the staff scientists and engineers. The report is organized into three major sections: Programs and Projects, Research and Technology, and Engineering and Technical Services. A table of contents and an author index have been developed to assist readers in finding articles of special interest. This report is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of all the research and technology work done over the past fiscal year. Most of the work is reported in Glenn-published technical reports, journal articles, and presentations prepared by Glenn staff and contractors. In addition, university grants have enabled faculty members and graduate students to engage in sponsored research that is reported at technical meetings or in journal articles. For each article in this report, a Glenn contact person has been identified, and where possible, a reference document is listed so that additional information can be easily obtained. The diversity of topics attests to the breadth of research and technology being pursued and to the skill mix of the staff that makes it possible. For more information, visit Glenn's Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/glenn/. This document is available online (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/). For publicly available reports, visit the Glenn Technical Report Server (http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov).
NASA s Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) development program is funding the advancement of next generation power conversion technologies that will enable future missions that have requirements that can not be met by either the ubiquitous photovoltaic systems or by current Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS). Requirements of advanced radioisotope power systems include high efficiency and high specific power (watts/kilogram) in order to meet mission requirements with less radioisotope fuel and lower mass. Other Advanced RPS development goals include long-life, reliability, and scalability so that these systems can meet requirements for a variety of future space applications including continual operation surface missions, outer-planetary missions, and solar probe. This paper provides an update on the Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology Project which awarded ten Phase I contracts for research and development of a variety of power conversion technologies consisting of Brayton, Stirling, thermoelectrics, and thermophotovoltaics. Three of the contracts continue during the current Phase II in the areas of thermoelectric and Stirling power conversion. The accomplishments to date of the contractors, project plans, and status will be summarized.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing new launch systems in preparation for the retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010, as directed in the United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and the Ares V heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) systems will build upon proven, reliable hardware derived from the Apollo Saturn (1961 to 1975) and Space Shuttle (1972 to 2010) programs to deliver safe, reliable, affordable space transportation solutions. This approach leverages existing aerospace talent and a unique infrastructure, as well as the vast amount of legacy knowledge gained from almost a half-century of hard-won experience in the space enterprise. Beginning early next decade, the Ares I will launch the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to the International Space Station (ISS) or to low-Earth orbit for trips to the Moon and, ultimately, Mars. Late next decade, the Ares V's Earth Departure Stage will carry larger payloads such as the lunar lander into orbit, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle will dock with it for missions to the Moon, where astronauts will explore new territories and conduct science and technology experiments. Both the Ares I and Ares V systems are being designed to support longer future trips to Mars. The Exploration Launch Projects Office, located at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is designing, developing, testing, and evaluating both launch vehicle systems in partnership with other NASA Centers, Government agencies, and industry contractors. This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also touches on risk-based management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it gives a summary of several notable accomplishments over the past year, since the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off in October 2005, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.
The 2005 NASA Seal/Secondary Air System workshop covered the following topics: (i) Overview of NASA s new Exploration Initiative program aimed at exploring the Moon, Mars, and beyond; (ii) Overview of the NASA-sponsored Propulsion 21 Project; (iii) Overview of NASA Glenn s seal project aimed at developing advanced seals for NASA s turbomachinery, space, and reentry vehicle needs; (iv) Reviews of NASA prime contractor, vendor, and university advanced sealing concepts including tip clearance control, test results, experimental facilities, and numerical predictions; and (v) Reviews of material development programs relevant to advanced seals development. Turbine engine studies have shown that reducing high-pressure turbine (HPT) blade tip clearances will reduce fuel burn, lower emissions, retain exhaust gas temperature margin, and increase range. Several organizations presented development efforts aimed at developing faster clearance control systems and associated technology to meet future engine needs. The workshop also covered several programs NASA is funding to develop technologies for the Exploration Initiative and advanced reusable space vehicle technologies. NASA plans on developing an advanced docking and berthing system that would permit any vehicle to dock to any on-orbit station or vehicle. Seal technical challenges (including space environments, temperature variation, and seal-on-seal operation) as well as plans to develop the necessary "androgynous" seal technologies were reviewed. Researchers also reviewed tests completed for the shuttle main landing gear door seals.
This viewgraph presentation reviews the experience of improving the operation of the ExtraVehiclar Activity (EVA) Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory as a team of NASA employees and contractors. It reviews specific recommendations to use in turning a struggling organization around as a NASA/contractor team
The Orion spacecraft orbit GN&C system will be required to perform both ISS servicing missions and Lunar sortie and outpost crew transportation. While certain aspects of these two missions are complementary, the two missions are also distinct in many ways. Common between the missions is a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) rendezvous, one with the ISS And the other with the LSAM/EDS stack prior to trans-lunar insertion. The lunar missions will additionally require Orion to perform orbit maintenance in LLO, perform contingency lunar orbit operations including RPOD with the LSAM, perform the TEI maneuver sequence, and execute the trans-Earth cruise. The NASA-led team developed a reference configuration orbit GN&C system capable of executing all of these activities with the same navigation sensor suite and control effectors while fully meeting the requirements being developed for System Requirements Review in advance of prime contractor selection. This paper will present an overview of the analyses performed to support system trade studies, demonstrate the feasibility of the NASA reference configuration, and validate the Orion system requirements. These analyses include linear covariance techniques, 3-DOF Monte Carlo simulations, 6-DOF Monte Carlo simulations, and analytical evaluations of GN&C systems performed by the NASA-led Orion team to characterize the sensitivities of Orion s various missions and assess the unique challenges of each. The first part of this paper will describe the trade studies that were performed in order to characterize the RPOD system performance for both the ISS and the lunar missions including development of an RPOD operations concept, RPOD trajectories, contingency scenarios, docking mechanism and associated contact conditions, post-contact thrust issues, relative navigation sensors, relative navigation sensor target infrastructure. The paper will also discuss concepts for both manually-piloted and automatically executed scenarios, as well as the remotely-piloted contingency scenario in LLO. The second part of the paper will discuss the analyses performed for lunar and cislunar GN&C performance including the accuracy of the post-insertion lunar orbit, the ability of Orion to hit a particular Earth return entry corridor, attitude control solutions for long-duration surface operations, and autonomous navigation in support of TEI without ground tracking.
As part of its overall objectives, the Orion spacecraft will be required to perform entry and Earth landing functions for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Lunar missions. Both of these entry scenarios will begin with separation of the Service Module (SM), making them unique from other Orion mission phases in that only the Command Module (CM) portion of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be involved, requiring a CM specific Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) system. Also common to these mission scenarios will be the need for GN&C to safely return crew (or cargo) to earth within the dynamic thermal and structural constraints of entry and within acceptable accelerations on the crew, utilizing the limited aerodynamic performance of the CM capsule. The lunar return mission could additionally require an initial atmospheric entry designed to support a precision skip and second entry, all to maximize downrange performance and ensure landing in the United States. This paper describes the Entry GN&C reference design, developed by the NASA-led team, that supports these entry scenarios and that was used to validate the Orion System requirements. Description of the reference design will include an overview of the GN&C functions, avionics, and effectors and will relate these to the specific design drivers of the entry scenarios, as well as the desire for commonality in vehicle systems to support the different missions. The discussion will also include the requirement for an Emergency Entry capability beyond that of the nominal performance of the multi-string GNC system, intended to return the crew to the earth in a survivable but unguided manner. Finally, various analyses will be discussed, including those completed to support validation efforts of the current CEV requirements, along with those on-going and planned with the intention to further refine the requirements and to support design development work in conjunction with the prime contractor. Some of these ongoing analyses will include work to size effectors (jets) and fuel budgets, to refine skip entry concepts, to characterize navigation performance and uncertainties, to provide for SM disposal offshore and to identify requirements to support target site selection.
Jeff Volosin is an aerospace engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design, development, and operations of both robotic and crewed spacecraft. Mr. Volosin is currently leading the NASA effort to develop and integrate a global exploration strategy which reflects the lunar exploration interests of international space agencies, academia and commercial stakeholders. Prior to joining NASA as a member of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in 2004, Jeff was an aerospace contractor, serving in a number of leadership positions including: Operations Manager for the NASA Communications Network and Flight Operations Manager for the Advanced Composition Explorer, Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, and the NOAA Polar and Geostationary satellite constellations. Earlier in his career, Jeff spent 4 years as a system engineer supporting the Space Exploration Initiative studies on human voyages to the Moon and Mars and also supported the Space Station program as an advanced life support engineer.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the implementation of a programmatic quality assurance discipline within the International Space Station Program and the resulting impact on safety. NASA culture has continued to stress safety at the expense of quality when both are extremely important and both can equally influence the success or failure of a Program or Mission. Although safety was heavily criticized in the media after Col~imbiaa, strong case can be made that it was the failure of quality processes and quality assurance in all processes that eventually led to the Columbia accident. Consequently, it is possible to have good quality processes without safety, but it is impossible to have good safety processes without quality. The ISS Program quality assurance function was analyzed as representative of the long-term manned missions that are consistent with the President s Vision for Space Exploration. Background topics are as follows: The quality assurance organizational structure within the ISS Program and the interrelationships between various internal and external organizations. ISS Program quality roles and responsibilities with respect to internal Program Offices and other external organizations such as the Shuttle Program, JSC Directorates, NASA Headquarters, NASA Contractors, other NASA Centers, and International Partner/participants will be addressed. A detailed analysis of implemented quality assurance responsibilities and functions with respect to NASA Headquarters, the JSC S&MA Directorate, and the ISS Program will be presented. Discussions topics are as follows: A comparison of quality and safety resources in terms of staffing, training, experience, and certifications. A benchmark assessment of the lessons learned from the Columbia Accident Investigation (CAB) Report (and follow-up reports and assessments), NASA Benchmarking, and traditional quality assurance activities against ISS quality procedures and practices. The lack of a coherent operational and sustaining quality assurance strategy for long-term manned space flight. An analysis of the ISS waiver processes and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) process implemented as quality functions. Impact of current ISS Program procedures and practices with regards to operational safety and risk A discussion regarding a "defense-in-depth" approach to quality functions will be provided to address the issue of "integration vs independence" with respect to the roles of Programs, NASA Centers, and NASA Headquarters. Generic recommendations are offered to address the inadequacies identified in the implementation of ISS quality assurance. A reassessment by the NASA community regarding the importance of a "quality culture" as a component within a larger "safety culture" will generate a more effective and value-added functionality that will ultimately enhance safety.
The concept of Mission Control was envisioned by Christopher Columbus Kraft in the 1960's. Instructed to figure out how to operate human space flight safely, Kraft envisioned a room of sub-system experts troubleshooting problems and supporting nominal flight activities under the guidance of one Flight Director who is responsible for the success of the mission. To facilitate clear communication, MCC communicates with the crew through a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) who is an astronaut themselves. Gemini 4 was the first mission to be supported by such a MCC and successfully completed the first American EVA. The MCC seen on television is called the Flight Control Room (FCR, pronounced ficker) or otherwise known as the front room. While this room is the most visible aspect, it is a very small component of the entire control center. The Shuttle FCR is known as the White FCR (WFCR) and Station's as FCR-1. (FCR-1 was actually the first FCR built at JSC which was used through the Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle programs until the WFCR was completed in 1992. Afterwards FCR-1 was refurbished first for the Life Sciences Center and then for the ISS in 2006.) Along with supporting the Flight Director, each FCR operator is also the supervisor for usually two or three support personnel in a back room called the Multi-Purpose Support Room (MPSR, pronounced mipser). MPSR operators are more deeply focused on their specific subsystems and have the responsible to analyze patterns, and diagnose and assess consequences of faults. The White MPSR (WMPSR) operators are always present for Shuttle operations; however, ISS FCR controllers only have support from their Blue MPSR (BMPSR) while the Shuttle is docked and during critical operations. Since ISS operates 24-7, the FCR team reduces to a much smaller Gemini team of 4-5 operators for night and weekend shifts when the crew is off-duty. The FCR is also supported by the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) which is a collection of contractor engineers who provide analysis and long-term troubleshooting support. Each MER operator is an expert in a very small portion of a sub-system and each FCR console usually interfaces with several MER positions.
The Glory program is an Earth and Solar science mission designed to broaden science community knowledge of the environment. The causes and effects of global warming have become a concern in recent years and Glory aims to contribute to the knowledge base of the science community. Glory is designed for two functions: one is solar viewing to monitor the total solar irradiance and the other is observing the Earth s atmosphere for aerosol composition. The former is done with an active cavity radiometer, while the latter is accomplished with an aerosol polarimeter sensor to discern atmospheric particles. The Glory program is managed by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) with Orbital Sciences in Dulles, VA as the prime contractor for the spacecraft bus, mission operations, and ground system. This paper will describe some of the more unique features of the Glory program including the integration and testing of the satellite and instruments as well as the science data processing. The spacecraft integration and test approach requires extensive analysis and additional planning to ensure existing components are successfully functioning with the new Glory components. The science mission data analysis requires development of mission unique processing systems and algorithms. Science data analysis and distribution will utilize our national assets at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP). The Satellite was originally designed and built for the Vegetation Canopy Lidar (VCL) mission, which was terminated in the middle of integration and testing due to payload development issues. The bus was then placed in secure storage in 2001 and removed from an environmentally controlled container in late 2003 to be refurbished to meet the Glory program requirements. Functional testing of all the components was done as a system at the start of the program, very different from a traditional program. The plan for Glory is to minimize any changes to the spacecraft in order to meet the Glory requirements. This means that the instrument designs must adhere to the existing interfaces and capabilities as much as possible. Given Glory's unique history and the potential science return, the program is one of significant value to both the science community and the world. The findings Glory promises will improve our understanding of the drivers for global climate change for a minimal investment. The program hopes to show that reuse of existing government assets can result in a lower cost, and fully successful mission.