Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Handbook”

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 1,207 records · Page 67

Surviving and Thriving in Space and on Earth's Oceans - Human Logistics and Sustainability Comparisons and Considerations

The human species has a yearning for exploration as evidenced by the extensive historical ocean voyages and expeditions which have led to a massive advancement in the scientific and geodetic knowledge about planet Earth. These global explorations via the oceans have also had strategic, economic, cultural and religious implications and impacts, which have drastically changed the state of humanity and its condition. The transportation network created by ships traveling across the oceans has been supplemented by other transportation networks on land and in the air, creating a global economy that, in general, has improved the human condition leading to better health, longer lives, lower child mortality, better education, political freedom, higher gross national product (GNP) and improved hygiene. The logical extension of this societal trend is to extend the transportation network and human civilization into outer space, beyond the cradle of planet Earth. Our solar system contains vast amounts of natural resources which can be harnessed and used to bootstrap a space economy and related infrastructure by using advanced technologies. Sailing journeys from hundreds of years ago required large vessels and large crews, (in comparison with today’s space capsules). Modern sailors of today are able to complete large voyages, in small vessels, with a minimal crew, comparable in magnitude to modern space travel. This paper will use a systems engineering approach (e.g. using the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), NASA-SP-2010-3407, 2010 and the “Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document, (BVAD)” NASA-CR-2004-208941, 2004.), to examine and compare the logistics and sustainability aspects of a small crew traveling on Earth's oceans in sailing vessels versus humans traveling in space. The “Mālama Honua Worldwide Voyage” of the Hokule’a, a replica of an ancient Hawaiian double hulled sailing canoe, will be used as a case study. This is the best comparison case since the Polynesian exploration of the vast (and virtually empty) Pacific Ocean is the closest analogue to modern space travel. “"Both are voyages of exploration.” –Shuttle astronaut Lacy Veach. Minimizing waste and maximizing re-use and re-cycling will lead to more efficient logistics and sustainability. In addition, In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) strategies, based on successful Earth based strategies used for many years by sailors will be considered and evaluated for their usefulness. For example, human logistics for a typical space mission are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 (Lopez et al, 2015). Studies show that typical human water consumption in space is projected to be 3.2 kg/day per crew member as shown in Table 2. Data from human sailing voyages around the globe will be examined. Anecdotal evidence indicates that knowledgeable and well-equipped modern sailors, who conserve water, can comfortably live using 1.5 to 5 kg/day per person. This paper will investigate key logistics and sustainability aspects of living in space and compare them quantitatively to similar aspects of living on ocean faring sailing vessels on Earth. Mutually beneficial observations, advanced technologies and modern considerations will be applied within confines of a remote sailing environment, which could be of immense value to both the space faring community and the ocean sailing community.

Space↗

Surviving and Thriving in Space and on Earth's Oceans, Human Logistics and Sustainability: Comparisons and Considerations

Ocean exploration sailing journeys from hundreds of years ago typically required large vessels and large crews (in comparison with today’s space capsules) to travel between the continents and around the world. Modern sailors of today are able to complete similar distant voyages, in small vessels, with a minimal crew, comparable in size to modern space travel crews. This paper uses a systems engineering approach (e.g. using the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), NASA-SP-2010-3407, 2010 and the “Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document, (BVAD)” NASA-CR-2004-208941, 2004.), to examine and compare the logistics and sustainability aspects of a small crew traveling on Earth's oceans in sailing vessels versus humans traveling in space. The “Mālama Honua Worldwide Voyage” of the Hōkūleʻa, a replica of an ancient Hawaiian double hulled sailing canoe, will be used as a baseline minimalist case study. This is a good comparison case since the Polynesian exploration of the vast (and virtually empty) Pacific Ocean with limited resources is an analogue to human space travel. A modern sailboat is compared to the ancient Polynesian methods and then a space craft is assessed with similar functional decomposition methods. In 1992 during his second Space Shuttle mission (STS-52, Columbia) Astronaut Lacy Veach received a radio message from a student: "What are the similarities and differences between canoe and space travel?" Astronaut Charles Lacy Veach answered, "Both are voyages of exploration. Hōkūle‘a is in the past, Columbia is in the future." Navigator Nainoa Thompson added from the sailing canoe, "Columbia is the highest achievement of modern technology today, a voyaging canoe was the highest achievement of technology in its day." This paper is dedicated to the memory of two great Hawaiian astronauts: US Air Force Colonel Charles Lacy Veach and US Air Force Colonel Ellison Onizuka and to legendary waterman and Hōkūleʻa crew member Eddie Aikau who was lost at sea in 1978, at the beginning of a 30-day, 2,500-mile (4,000km) journey by the Hōkūleʻa to follow the ancient route of the Polynesian migration between the Hawaiian and Tahitian island chains.

Robert P Mueller↗

Cryogenic Technologies for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Science Instruments

This work was performed at the request of the Program Chief Engineer for Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). The intended audience for this position paper is the prospective SOFIA Science Instrument (SI) developer, who may not have extensive experience with cryogenics or cryostat design. The objective is to provide an introductory handbook that (1) concisely summarizes SOFIA requirements, (2) describes components and techniques that enable cryostats to reach temperatures ranging from 4 K to 50 mK, and (3) warns of common pitfalls that an SI developer might encounter.

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy↗

Microelectronics reliability : physics-of-failure based modeling and lifetime evaluation

This handbook presents a physics-of-failure approach to microelectronics reliability modeling and assessment. Knowledge of the root cause and physical behavior of key failure mechanisms in microelectronic devices has improved dramatically over recent years and has led to the development of more sophisticated reliability modeling tools and techniques...

White, Mark↗

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach is building qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to test, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Life support↗

Lessons Learned in Space Life Support System Testing

The earlier problems can be found and corrected, the easier and cheaper it is to fix them. Doing less testing saves cost and time but doing too little testing increases the risk of operational failures causing large costs and delays. Integrated test is necessary to determine if the subsystems work together and the overall architecture performs as intended. This report reviews the testing lessons learned from the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, a National Research Council report, and five reviews of International Space Station (ISS) lessons learned. The five reviews all mention two important points. First, that testing should be performed on the final integrated system, one as close as possible to the intended flight system. Second, “test as you fly,” while operating as planned in an environment as close as possible to the expected flight environment. Other lessons are the need for extensive preflight ground testing, the need to establish and defend an adequate budget, the problems using protoflight hardware on ISS, and the benefit of having ISS as a zero gravity test bed. The major ISS life support systems, carbon dioxide removal, water recycling, and oxygen recovery, were protoflight systems with little testing before launch to ISS. The failure rates of these systems have been much greater than predicted and this has caused dissatisfaction with the protoflight approach. The more costly traditional approach builds qualification and test units in addition to flight units. The test units are used to find, analyze, and fix failure modes. Other work shows that there is an optimum cost-effective amount of testing when redundant systems must have a specified reliability and confidence.

Harry W. Jones↗

Co-developing a SAR for Disasters Reference Guide for the International Applications Community

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data are widely applicable for disaster monitoring, especially in Central and South America where atmospheric effects are a frequent obstacle for disaster monitoring. There is a growing interest in the application of SAR data to diverse disasters, ranging from landslides to volcanic eruptions and floods. With this interest comes a growing need for user-friendly guides that facilitate the integration of SAR into existing workflows. A joint effort between AmeriGEO, university networks in the Americas, NASA SERVIR’s Science Coordination Office (SCO), and the NASA Earth Science Disasters Program, culminated in the “SAR for Disasters” Guide. The guide is modeled after the one-page informational sheets created for SERVIR’s SAR Handbook, with the aim to succinctly communicate the key considerations needed to apply relevant analyses using SAR. Developed with contributors from diverse backgrounds, this guide is designed to be a useful reference for experienced technical users and beginners alike.

SAR↗

Satellite Conjunction Assessment, Risk Analysis and Collision Avoidance Best Practices: The History, Evolution and Opportunities

Since Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958, the United States (U.S.) has reaped the benefits of space exploration. New markets and new technologies have spurred the economy and changed lives in many ways across the national security, civil, and commercial sectors. Space technologies and space-based capabilities now provide global communications, navigation and timing, weather forecasting, and more. Space exploration also presents challenges that impact not only the U.S. but also its allies and other partners. A significant increase in the volume and diversity of activity in space means that it is becoming increasingly congested. Emerging commercial ventures such as satellite servicing, in-space manufacturing, and tourism as well as new technologies enabling small satellites and large constellations of satellites present serious challenges for safely and responsibly using space in a stable, sustainable manner. To meet these challenges, the U.S. seeks to improve global awareness of activity in space by publicly sharing flight safety-related information and by coordinating its own on-orbit activity in a safer, more responsible manner. It seeks to bolster stability and reduce current and future operational on-orbit risks so that space is sustained for future generations. To this end, new and better Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capabilities are needed to keep pace with the increased congestion, and the U.S. seeks to create a dynamic environment that encourages and rewards commercial providers who improve these capabilities. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook reflects how NASA currently operates, which has evolved over time. Consideration is given to important topics such as spacecraft and constellation design; spacecraft “trackability;” pre-launch preparation and early launch activities; on-orbit collision avoidance; and automated trajectory guidance and maneuvering. This talk aims to present examples of responsible practices for spacecraft Owners/Operators (O/O) to consider for lowering collision risks and operating safely in space (from LEO and beyond) in a stable and sustainable manner. As technology and innovation continues to improve upon existing capabilities, what kind of new challenges are presented in the SSA community? Can space exploration and commercial ventures thrive while keeping paramount the safety and protection of the space environment? What are the challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed and considered for space situational awareness in Cis-Lunar Space? It may prove useful for entities offering, or intending to offer, SSA or Conjunction Assessment (CA) services to consider such examples of responsible practices to protect the space environment for future use by all.

Collision Avoidance↗

NASA’s Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA’s planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective’s NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle. Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientific consensus, and to identify and fill in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

James Benardini↗

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportuni-ties for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamina-tion, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR com-munity will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Planetary Protection↗

Implementation of Human Systems Integration Technical and Management Process for the Lunar Gateway Program

NASA recognizes Human Systems Integration (HSI) as part of the overall systems engineering and acquisition strategy for space systems. The Lunar Gateway Program is implementing HSI technical and management process across the lifecycle of the mission, as required by NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and led by the Gateway HSI team as required by NPR 8705.2C Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, now HEOMD-003 Crewed Deep Space Systems Human Rating Certification Requirements and Standards for NASA Missions. NASA has been using HSI principles for many years and has applied them to many of its previous human spaceflight Programs. As NASA returns to the Moon in a more sustainable manner, the Gateway Program is maturing the application of HSI by implementing it more visibly as part of Artemis, with guidance from the NASA/SP-20210010952 NASA HSI Handbook. This paper discusses how HSI is being implemented in the Gateway Program, challenges faced with its implementation during the development phase, and strategies/approaches used to overcome those. The paper also covers HSI implementation for flight systems, vehicle processing, and interfaces across the six identified NASA HSI Domains: human factors engineering, operations, safety, training, maintainability and supportability, habitability and environment. The goal is to provide an overview of the implementation process of HSI in the Gateway Program as an example for other Programs/Projects/Missionsthat are looking to implement HSI.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗

NASA's Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA's planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective's NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle.Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientific consensus, and to identify and fill in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

Planetary Protection↗

Data-Informed Environmental Conversion: Updating MIL-HDBK-217 and -338 with 50+ years of field data

Using over five decades of field data on electric and non-electric parts, we revisit the environmental conversion methodology described in MIL-HDBKs -217 and -338. These Reliability Engineering Handbooks’ predicted values are compared to new tables, developed using observed data. This observed data approach is also used to develop environmental conversion factors for non-electric parts, which were out of scope of MIL-HDBK-217 and -338.

reliability↗

NASA’s Revised Planetary Protection Policy and Implementation

NASA has updated its planetary protection policy and implementation approach in response to advances in scientific understanding of solar system targets, upcoming mission opportunities for exploration and sample return, and the private sector’s emerging capability to plan missions to Earth’s Moon and Mars. In September 2021, the NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 8715.24, entitled “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions” was released which repositions planetary protection in existing NASA mission and program management structures, introduces risk-informed decision making, expands on key roles and responsibilities for both programmatic and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, updates the categorization process and streamlines the planetary protection documentation approval and schedule. NASA is working on a more detailed technical standard to accompany NPR 8715.24 which will include the detailed technical requirements to address organic contamination, inadvertent impact avoidance, biological control and management, end of mission disposal and restricted Earth-Return sample safety and assurance. This report to the COSPAR community will describe the current NASA planetary protection policy and its alignment with the revised COSPAR planetary protection policy. NASA’s plans for updating the supporting “Handbook for Implementing Planetary Protection Technical Requirements” and future policies for addressing planetary protection of crewed missions will also be presented.

Elaine Seasly↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

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

Bruce Yost↗

Effect of Loading Rate on the Open Hole Compression Strength of Quasi-Isotropic Carbon/Epoxy Laminates

This study was undertaken to examine how well the 0.05 inch/min loading rate typically used to develop allowables for open hole compression strength of carbon/epoxy laminates represents structures that may experience a much lower loading rate (such as civil engineering structures) or a much higher loading rate (such as a rocket interstage at liftoff). The Composite Materials Handbook-17 (CMH-17) suggests developing strength allowables at the coupon level (lowest level of the “building block” approach) and using a rigorous statistical analysis to arrive at a strength allowable upon which the structure is to be further designed at higher levels of the building block pyramid. But do these coupon level tests truly represent meaningful stresses at which the composite in the final structure can withstand considering the effects of loading rate? Open hole compression (OHC) strength was chosen for this study since most structures are designed to some damage tolerance criteria and OHC strength testing is rather simple to perform. A quasi-isotropic lay-up was chosen since this is a very common lay-up sequence. The results show that for structures that experience a very small loading rate (0.0005 in/min) the allowables developed at the standard 0.05 in/min loading rate are higher than what the composite can withstand at this lower loading rate. Conversely, at a high loading rate of 10 in/min the strength values found at the standard test rate of 0.05 in/min are slightly lower and not “in family” using the statistics suggested in CMH-17. These results question if standardized test rates are reliable, at least to the fidelity of being “in family” per CMH-17. Some creep rupture tests were also performed to demonstrate that OHC strength values could be lower than the slowest test speed used in this study (0.0005 in/min).

open hole compression strength↗

How to Fly with BPO & Requirements & Recommendations for Balloon Gondola Design

An overview of the launch process from initial solicitation through flight. The discussion will include the overall review process for balloon missions seeking flights from all launch locations, high level overview of required documentation, and specific requests for safety review. Also a presentation on the Gondola Structural Design Handbook with recommendations.

Balloon↗