Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Notes”

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 1,351 records · Page 75
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Computational and Experimental Study of Li-doped Ionic Liquids at Electrified Interfaces

We evaluate the influence of Li-salt doping on the dynamics, capacitance, and structure of three ionic liquid electrolytes, [pyr14][TFSI], [pyr13][FSI], and [EMIM][BF4], using molecular dynamics and polarizable force fields. In this respect, our focus is on the properties of the electric double layer (EDL) formed by the electrolytes at the electrode surface as a function of surface potential (Psi). The rates of EDL formation are found to be on the order of hundreds of picoseconds and only slightly influenced by the addition of Li-salt. The EDLs of three electrolytes are shown to have different energy storage capacities, which we relate to the EDL formation free energy. The differential capacitance obtained from our computations exhibits asymmetry about the potential of zero charge and is consistent with the camel-like profiles noted from mean field theories and experiments on metallic electrodes. The introduction of Li-salt reduces the noted asymmetry in the differential capacitance profile. Complementary experimental capacitance measurements have been made on our three electrolytes in their neat forms and with Li-salt. The measurements, performed on glassy carbon electrodes, produce U-like profiles, and Li-salt doping is shown to strongly affect capacitance at high magnitudes of Psi. Differences in the theoretical and experimental shapes and magnitudes of capacitance are rationalized in terms of the electrode surface and pseudocapacitive effects. In both neat and Li-doped liquids, the details of the computational capacitance profile are well described by Psi-induced changes in the density and molecular orientation of ions in the molecular layer closest to the electrode. Our results suggest that the addition of Li+ induces disorder in the EDL, which originates from the strong binding of anions to Li+. An in-depth analysis of the distribution of Li+ in the EDL reveals that it does not readily enter the molecular layer at the electrode surface, preferring instead to be localized farther away from the surface in the second molecular layer. This behavior is validated through an analysis of the free energy of Li+ solvation as a function of distance from the electrode. Free energy wells are found to coincide with localized concentrations of Li+, the depths of which increase with Psi and suggest a source of impedance for Li+ to reach the electrode.

Haskins, Justin B.↗
NASA NTRS2018

On the 2018 Outburst of the Accreting Millisecond X-Ray Pulsar Swift J1756.9-2508 As Seen with NICER

We report on the coherent timing analysis of the 182 Hz accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar SwiftJ1756.92508during its 2018 outburst as observed with the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER). Combiningour NICER observations with Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer observations of the 2007 and 2009 outbursts, we alsostudied the long-term spin and orbital evolution of this source. We find that the binary system is well describedby a constant orbital period model, with an upper limit on the orbital period derivative of Pb < 7.4 ´ 10-13 ss1.Additionally, we improve upon the source coordinates through astrometric analysis of the pulse arrival times,finding R.A.=17h56m57 18±0 08 and decl.=25°0627 8±3 5, while simultaneously measuring thelong-term spin frequency derivative as n = -7.3 ´ 10-16 Hzs1. We briefly discuss the implications of thesemeasurements in the context of the wider population of accreting millisecond pulsars. We reported on the coherent timing analysis of the 2018 outburst of Swift J1756 as observed with NICER. Consistent with analyses of the previous outbursts (Krimm et al. 2007b; Patruno et al. 2010), we find that the X-ray pulsations have energy dependent amplitudes; the fractional amplitude of the fundamental increases with energy, whereas the fractional amplitude of the harmonic shows a slight decline with energy. This energy dependent behavior is not unusual in AMXPs (Patruno & Watts 2012) and can be interpreted in terms of the thermal emission from the stellar hotspot and reprocessing in the accretion column (e.g., Gierliński et al. 2002; Ibragimov & Poutanen 2009). The pulse arrival times of the 2018 outburst are well described by a timing model consisting of a circular orbit with a constant spin frequency. The pulse phases with respect to this model do not show spurious residuals with time or orbital phase, and no evidence is found that the pulse arrival times exhibit an additional delay associated with passing through the gravitational well of the companion star (Shapiro delay). We note, however, that the expected Shapiro delay is given as (Shapiro et al. 1971) Equation (5) where Φ is the orbital phase, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and i is the inclination. Even for the maximum allowed companion mass, ${M}_{C}=0.030\,{M}_{\odot }$ (Krimm et al. 2007b, but see Section 4.2 for more details) and an inclination of 90°, the largest delay we can expect is only 4 μs. As this time-delay is smaller than the uncertainty on our phase residuals by nearly two orders of magnitude (see Figure 1), we are not sensitive to Shapiro delays in Swift J1756. Comparing our measurements for the 2018 outburst with those of the 2007 and 2009 outbursts as observed with RXTE, we analyzed the long-term evolution of this source. We found that the binary system is consistent with having a constant orbital period and that the pulsar shows a spin frequency derivative of $\dot{\nu }=-7.3\times {10}^{-16}\,\mathrm{Hz}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$. 4.1. Spin-down Evolution The long-term spin frequency derivative measured in Swift J1756 is of the same order as the spin frequency derivatives measured in other AMXPs (Hartman et al. 2008; Patruno 2010; Riggio et al. 2011). This frequency change is most likely driven by the neutron star's loss of rotational energy. If so, then the spin-down luminosity is given as Equation (6) where I represents the neutron star moment of inertia. The long-term spin-down of a neutron star is usually assumed to be dominated by the braking torque associated with a spinning magnetic field. Assuming this mechanism is responsible for the observed spin-down in Swift J1756, we can compute the magnetic dipole moment as (Spitkovsky 2006) Equation (7) where α is the misalignment angle between the rotational and magnetic poles. Considering α = 0°–90°, we then find a magnetic field strength of $B\simeq (4\mbox{--}6)\times {10}^{8}$ G at the stellar magnetic poles. This magnetic field strength estimate is in line with those obtained for other accreting millisecond pulsars (see Mukherjee et al. 2015 and references therein). 4.2. Orbit Evolution The observed long-term binary evolution of Swift J1756 is consistent with this source having a constant orbital period and a lower limit on the evolutionary timescale of Equation (8) Binary evolution theory predicts that systems of this type evolve due to angular momentum loss through gravitational radiation (Kraft et al. 1962; Rappaport et al. 1982; Verbunt 1993). For conservative mass transfer, the binary period derivative is given by di Salvo et al. (2008), Equation (9) where MNS is the neutron star mass, $q={M}_{C}/{M}_{\mathrm{NS}}$ is the binary mass ratio, and −1/3 < n < 1 is the mass–radius index of the companion star. Depending on the source inclination, Krimm et al. (2007b) derived a companion mass of ${M}_{C}\,=0.007\mbox{--}0.022\,{M}_{\odot }$ for a neutron star mass of 1.4 ${M}_{\odot }$. For a neutron star mass of 2.2 ${M}_{\odot }$, the allowed range increased to ${M}_{C}=0.009\mbox{--}0.030\,{M}_{\odot }$. In both cases, they assumed an upper limit on the inclination of i < 85°, motivated by the fact that Swift J1756 does not show eclipses in its light curve. Accounting for the extreme cases of stellar masses and n, the binary may either be contracting or expanding. In either case, however, the rate of change is limited to $| {\dot{P}}_{b}| \lesssim 7\times {10}^{-14}$ s s−1, which is well below the upper limit obtained in this work. Although the binary evolution timescale we obtain for Swift J1756 is consistent with theory, it is worth noting that this is not generally true for low-mass X-ray binaries (see Patruno et al. 2017, for a comprehensive discussion). The AMXP SAX J1808.4–3658, in particular, has been found to evolve on a much shorter timescale, with a first derivative on the orbital period of $3.5\times {10}^{-12}$ s s−1 (Hartman et al. 2008; Patruno et al. 2012; Sanna et al. 2017a). Two models have been proposed to explain this discrepancy: highly nonconservative mass transfer due to irradiation of the companion star by the pulsar (di Salvo et al. 2008; Burderi et al. 2009), and spin–orbit coupling in the companion star (Hartman et al. 2008, 2009). While the latter depends on the companion star, and may vary from source to source, the former should operate in all AMXPs (see also Patruno 2017; Sanna et al. 2017c), including Swift J1756. The spin-down luminosity impinging on the companion star can be estimated as Equation (10) where ${\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{abl}}$ is the ablation luminosity, RL2 is the Roche lobe radius of the companion (Eggleton 1983), and a the binary separation. The irradiation fraction is $f={\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{abl}}/{\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{sd}}$, which, accounting for the range of allowed neutron star and companion masses, evaluates to f = 0.15%–0.35%. The associated mass loss for the companion is given by Equation (11) such that, assuming an efficiency of η = 100%, ${\dot{M}}_{C}\,\sim -3\times {10}^{-10}\,{M}_{\odot }$ yr−1. The effect of this mass loss on the orbital period follows through the relation (Frank et al. 2002) Equation (12) giving a period derivative due to mass loss of ${\dot{P}}_{b,\mathrm{ML}}\,=5\times {10}^{-12}$ s s−1. This value is well above our limit on the period derivative. Hence, in order for this mechanism to be consistent with our observations of Swift J1756, the efficiency at which the companion star converts the incident luminosity into mass loss must be η < 15%. This value is very different from the 40% required in SAX J1808.4–3658 (Patruno et al. 2016) and is instead in line with the <5% efficiency determined for IGR J00291+5934 (Patruno 2017). This work was supported by NASA through the NICER mission and the Astrophysics Explorers Program, and made use of data and software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC). P.B. was supported by an NPP fellowship at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. D.A. acknowledges support from the Royal Society.

Bult, Peter↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA GRC Electrospray Activities Overview

Notes summarizing electrospray thruster-related activities at NASA GRC. These notes are intended to be released to interested parties during a visit to AFRL Edwards following the AFRL Electrospray Workshop.

Liu, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2019

Data Validation: Difference Imaging and Centroid Analysis

This Design Note describes the theory and application of difference imaging for automated validation of planet candidates in the Data Validation (DV) CSCI. This is one of the diagnostic tools employed in DV for planet candidate validation. The other DV diagnostics are described in separate KADNs and in the reference documents listed below. This document describes the difference image generation process, PRF-based centroiding of the out-of-transit and difference images, computation of quarterly centroid offsets and associated uncertainties, and determination of robust weighted mean centroid offsets/uncertainties over all available quarterly data sets. PRF-based centroiding is performed with calls to a library of functions that is shared with thePhotometric Analysis (PA) and Photometer Data Quality (PDQ) CSCIs. The centroiding library will be the subject of a separate Design Note.

Twicken, Joseph↗
NASA NTRS2019

Ozonesonde Quality Assurance: JOSIE-SHADOZ (2017) and SHALLOTS (2018)

Ozonesonde data constitute a mainstay of satellite calibration and are used for climatologies and analysis of trends, especially in the lower stratosphere where satellites are most uncertain. The electrochemical-concentration cell (ECC) ozonesonde has been deployed at ~100 stations worldwide since the 1960s, with changes over time in manufacture and procedures, including details of the cell chemical solution and data processing. As a consequence, there are biases among different stations and discontinuities in profile timeseries from individual site records. Since 1996 the Jülich [Germany] Ozone Sonde Intercomparison Experiment (JOSIE) has periodically tested ozonesondes in a simulation chamber designated the World Calibration Centre for Ozonesondes by WMO. In October- November 2017 a JOSIE campaign evaluated the sondes and procedures used in SHADOZ (Southern Hemisphere Additional Ozonesondes), a 14-station tropical and subtropical network. A distinctive feature of the 2017 JOSIE was that the tests were conducted by operators from eight SHADOZ stations; Nairobi, Natal, Irene, Costa Rica, Paramaribo, Reunion, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur. Experimental protocols and preliminary results for the SHADOZ sonde configurations, which represent most of those in use today, are described. SHADOZ stations that follow WMO-recommended protocols record total ozone within 3% of the JOSIE reference instrument. Instrument biases noted in prior JOSIE and field tests like BESOS (2004) were noted in JOSIE-2017, with maximum effect in the stratosphere. In June 2018 we organized a series of dual launches during the OWLETS II campaign in the Maryland and Chesapeake Bay area (SHALLOTS = SHADOZ-OWLETS ParaLLel Ozonesonde Test Study). Instrument and solution types were varied as in JOSIE-2017 and three radiosonde-ozonesonde variants were tested. An example of a parallel sampling in SHALLOTS, from a Greenbelt EnSCI-iMet sonde combination flown with the Wallops SPCLMS package, is illustrated in the Figure. The result was a range of biases but in general the instrument combination (EnSCI-iMet) deployed at 11 SHADOZ stations recorded ~5-10% less ozone in the stratosphere than the SPC ECC sonde flown with a Vaisala or LMS system. These 2017 and 2018 results and prior JOSIEs demonstrate that regular testing is essential to maintain best practices in ozonesonde operations and to ensure high-quality data for the ozone assessment communities.

Quality assurance↗
NASA NTRS2019

El Niño Related Tropical Land Surface Water and Energy Response in MERRA-2

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a coupled Earth system circulation phenomena that reaches all around the globe. The heat added to the atmosphere by increased precipitation produces circulation changes that have global reach and, over time, warms the entire tropical band, and much of the Earth. Many studies have noted that El Niño causes warm and dry (and sometimes drought) conditions over tropical land masses. We develop a composite analysis of El Niño to identify the predominate features of tropical land response. This analysis shows that the land’s lagged response is related to a reduction clouds that leads to increase surface shortwave radiation that increases the surface temperature. The precipitation lag is somewhat longer, and then leads to a reduction in soil water and, in concert with increased SW induced surface warming, leads to increased sensible heating of the atmosphere above. The M2AMIP simulation generally captures these features, but the response is strongest with increased temporal and spatial proximity to the El Niño peak warming. The regionality of these features is also discussed, and it is noted that even the strongest individual El Niño events can vary from this composite mechanistic paradigm.

Bosilovich, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS2020

TURBOMAT-FR: Turbomachinery Aeroelastic Forced Response Analysis Automation Using MATLAB® Part 2

The primary aim of this effort is to develop a software tool named “Turbomachinery Aeroelastic Analysis Tool for Forced Response (TURBOMAT-FR)” using MATLAB® (The MathWorks, Inc.) scripts. The tool will aid in performing routine forced response analysis of turbomachinery fan blades with the aid of the modal summation method (MSUM). The MSUM approach requires a modal solution consisting of modal displacements, frequencies, and stresses. The MATLAB® scripts facilitate easy extraction of the required quantities from the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and MSC Nastran (Hexagon AB) solution files. These quantities are subsequently utilized by the MSUM approach to perform a complete forced response analysis using the MATLAB® scripts. The MATLAB® scripts in TURBOMAT-FR are utilized in postprocessing of the MSC Nastran finite element analysis outputs in three types of solutions or steps, namely (1) stresses and displacements from static or steady response solution, (2) unsteady stresses and displacements from direct forced response solution, and (3) modal solution containing modal displacements and modal stresses. In step (4), separate MATLAB® scripts are also developed to read the processed outputs in step (3) and perform forced response analysis using MSUM. It should be noted that the direct forced response solution from step (2) will provide for a comparison with those obtained from the MSUM approach in steps (3) and (4). The TURBOMAT-FR MATLAB® scripts mentioned previously are presented in two reports designated Parts 1 and 2. Part 1 presents the scripts needed to accomplish steps (1) and (2). The current report, Part 2, presents the scripts needed to accomplish steps (3) and (4), noted previously. The TURBOMAT-FR MATLAB® scripts provided here in Part 2 facilitate the calculation of unsteady stresses using MSUM and provide an automated procedure associated with aeroelastic forced response analysis with different pressure files. The unsteady stresses calculated using MSUM can be compared with those presented in Part 1. A cantilevered blade-alone model subjected to a realistic pressure loading to a boundary was used for static and unsteady direct forced response analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of the TURBOMATFR MATLAB® scripts.

T S R Reddy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis and Comparison of Surface Roughness Effects on Pressure Data from SLS Wind Tunnel Test

Unsteady flows are becoming a more characterized field of study as advancements in technology is allowing for more high-speed, time-resolved data acquisition. It is important to understand these flows as the shock-wave boundary-layer interactions and separation they are involved with can generate extreme loads caused by high pressure and temperature on the body of a flight vehicle. It is vital to characterize these loads, as they can impede upon the structural integrity of a high-speed system. A common instrument utilized today to characterize pressure distributions caused by unsteady flows are unsteady pressure transducers. Set flush with the surface of a flight vehicle or wind tunnel model, these transducers can provide a pressure distribution, capturing the frequency of unsteady loads that could impinge upon the test article. A couple negative aspects of this instrumentation is that they are expensive, have long lead times, and a pressure distribution can only be determined in one discrete location where the transducer is installed. An optical diagnostic known as unsteady pressure-sensitive paint (uPSP) can help to satisfy these deficiencies. This is a spray paint that can be applied to a surface of a model to provide a global pressure distribution across the whole painted region.2 A complete picture of the fluid dynamic pressures occurring on the surface of a test article can be analyzed, especially in locations where it may have been impossible to install a transducer. Pressure-sensitive paint is also less expensive than traditional pressure transducers, which are, on average, about $2,000 each including the cost of installation.3 Unsteady PSP will not replace unsteady pressure transducers, but the transducers can be used to validate the PSP response to the flow and measure frequencies higher than the frequency response of the paint. One issue that can arise using these tools simultaneously, is that the surface roughness of the uPSP can affect the pressure readings of the transducers. Applying the uPSP to the surface of the model is going to affect the flow in some way as the topography of the model is now different than if it was not painted. One study with steady PSP conducted by Amer, Obara, and Liu at NASA Langley concluded that the PSP surface roughness was minimally intrusive at different test conditions with various lift, drag, etc., however, it was noted that data from some pressure transducers had decreased, likely due to the uneven application of the PSP in the localized region of the transducers.9 Sugioka et. al. tested various formulations of uPSP to study surface roughness effects on a Common Research Model (CRM) in transonic flow. The influence of uPSP on the surface of the model, depending on how it was formulated, was noted to have the possibility of relocating the shock wave present in the flow. This study was conducted to examine and compare transducer data acquired in December 2017 of a 4% scale model of the Space Launch System (SLS) performed at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT). One goal of the test was to demonstrate to the customer the potential of the uPSP system developed at NASA ARC. The effect of uPSP on transducer signals also became an interest in this experiment and is the reason for this data analysis. The results of this study were discussed with the SLS team to help them make decisions regarding the next test on an SLS model with the PSP and Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel teams.

pressure-sensitive paint↗
NASA NTRS2021

Radio Counterpart Candidates to 4FGL-DR2 Unassociated Sources

For the duration of the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope's mission, approximately one-third of the point sources detected have been noted as "unassociated," meaning that they seem to have no known counterpart at any other wavelength/frequency. This mysterious part of the gamma-ray sky is perhaps one of the largest unknowns in current astronomical pursuits, and as such has been probed extensively by various techniques at various frequencies. Radio frequencies have been perhaps one of the most fruitful, producing a large fraction of the identi ed and associated Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and pulsars noted in each update of the point source catalogs. Here we present a catalog of 7432 radio counterpart candidates for unassociated gamma-ray elds in the 2nd Data Release of the 4th Fermi Point Source Catalog (4FGL-DR2). A description of the catalog and source types is provided followed by a discussion that demonstrates how the results of this work will aid new associations and identi cations. As part of this work, we also present a rst catalog derived from "quicklook" images of the Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS).

S Bruzewski↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crucial Role of Thermal Gradients in MMS Fluxgate In-Flight Calibration

To meet the science goals of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission, the Fluxgate Magnetometer (FGM) must measure the ambient magnetic field with an accuracy of 0.1 nT. On a typical MMS orbit, the offsets (or zero levels) of the 3-axis FGM can vary by ~0.5 nT (exclusive of periods in Earth shadow). Previous studies have shown that these variations can be characterized as functions of sensor temperature, TS, and can thus be corrected to within 0.2 nT in the spin plane using in-flight calibration techniques (Bromund, et al., 2016, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160014711). In that presentation, we noted two significant observations: A distinct function of TS must be used to characterize offsets during shadow: offsets at a given TScan differ by as much as 2 nT in shadow vs sunlight. Offsets change after maneuvers, without a commensurate change in TS . These changes can be as large as 2 nT. We now note a third, related observation: Offsets increase with proximity to the earth even when TS is constant, resulting in variations of ~0.2 nT at 4-5 Earth radii (RE) These effects are evidence that offsets are a multivariate function of TS and another factor, namely: thermal gradients. Due to the spacecraft spin, the Earth and the Sun each provide a relatively constant thermal input onto one instrument face while the opposite face remains in shadow, thus giving rise to thermal gradients. The thermal gradient depend on the orientation of the spin axis relative to the Earth or Sun. We observe that offsets vary by as much as 0.17 nT/degree as a function of the tilt of the spin axis towards the Sun. Thermal input from the Earth is dominated by Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). Due to the proximity to Earth, the inverse proportion of the distance squared is a significant factor in the thermal gradient attributed to Earth OLR. We find that offsets can be corrected to <0.05 nT accuracy near perigee when accounting for these factors using empirically determined constants of proportionality that account for differences in emissivity of the top and bottom faces of the sensor to OLR (as well as other thermal effects). The changes in offset associated with thermal gradient are of the same order of magnitude as effects that were formerly attributed to sensor temperature alone, and thus both parameters are necessary to characterize the FGM offsets.

Kenneth R Bromund↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

rHEALTH Laboratory Analyzer - ISS Increment 66 Tech Demo

A multilateral, web-based symposium, featuring ISS Increment 66 investigations will be held on December 14, 15 and 16, 2021 beginning at 0600 CST each day. The purpose of this event is for Principal Investigators to present their science objectives, testing approach, and measurement methods to agency scientists, managers, and other investigators. Participation is encouraged to gather a global picture of the science planned to be performed on ISS during Increment 66. Please note that only Increment 66 new investigations and those that have not been covered by previous science symposia will be included. We will be in touch with the investigations’ POCs to confirm the presentations and identify the speakers as we develop the preliminary agenda for the Symposium. The agenda and additional details will be distributed prior to the symposium. Presentations will be organized by discipline and will be allotted 15 minutes to highlight the main contributions of their experiment. There will be a short question and answer period after each discipline group session is complete. Please include back-up material as needed. The presentations may be made available to ISS crew members as review material for on-orbit science preparation and/or public outreach activities. Therefore, please ensure a comprehensive presentation (additional back-up material may be provided). The presentations should briefly cover the following: - Science background and hypothesis - Investigation goals and objectives - Measurement approach - Importance and reason for ISS - Expected results and how they will advance the field - Earth benefits/spin-off applications Please note that all presentations and discussions should be limited to content approved for export and information that can be shared with participants and the general public.

Laboratory Analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Meteorite Sample Section Repair at NASA Johnson Space Center

Introduction: Meteorite thin and thick sections are routinely shipped from NASA Johnson Space Center to fulfill sample allocation requests from principle investigators around the world. Sections are also re-turned to JSC when researchers are finished studying them since, in most cases, they can be reused for other studies. The sections are very fragile unfortunately, and sometimes return to us needing repairs. The fol-lowing should give you an idea of how we repair sections here in the very lab where they were created. NOTE: Please do not attempt to repair ANSMET meteorite sections that are in your possession. We will perform the repairs for you at NASA JSC if you send the section back to us. Section Delamination: The majority of the meteorite sections that we produce here are secured to the glass slide using a high quality, two-part epoxy. Occasionally, we are asked to use superglue if the researcher wishes to dismount the section from the slide. Both epoxy and superglue are excellent adhesives, but they both tend to embrittle with time which results in delamination from the slide. Exposure to vacuum can also degrade the adhesion between the sample section and the glass slide. Repeated handling of the slide edges can accelerate delamination and, as a preventive measure, the outer 1-2 mm of epoxy is trimmed from newly created sections at JSC. If conductive tapes (copper, carbon, etc.) are used on the section during analysis, great care must be taken in removing the tape so that the epoxy is not pulled up with it. If in doubt, the tape can be left on the section when it is returned to JSC. Before we perform any repairs to sample sections, carbon, gold, or other coatings are removed. We accomplish this using a slurry of 0.05 micron alumina and 190 proof ethyl alcohol applied to a felt polishing pad fitted to a rotating lap wheel. Coatings are re-moved in this manner from all sections that are re-turned to JSC. The extent of the delamination determines how we proceed with the section repair. If the meteorite sample area of the section is not disturbed, then we carefully remove the delaminated epoxy. This is done using a binocular microscope with a 6X zoom, cut-proof gloves, and a very sharp, single edged razor blade. We cut the delaminated epoxy with the blade angled away from the sample area and using very light pressure. The trimmed section is then cleaned in an ultrasonic bath of 200 proof ethyl alcohol for no more than 10 seconds and carefully dried using a lint-free clean room wipe. The section is then placed into a lab oven at 110o F in preparation for epoxy. We mix the resin and hardener components of the low viscosity epoxy and very small amounts are applied to the cut edges of the section using a needle probe and the binocular microscope. Warming the epoxy helps secure the existing section by filling any voids between the glass slide and the section. After the new epoxy cures, we give the section a light polish on a lap wheel fitted with cotton polishing paper that is charged with 1 micron diamond paste. If the section has delaminated to the point of sample area being lifted from the glass, then it may be irreparable. We employ the above technique along with clamping the section in a Teflon pad arrangement in order to flatten the sample while the epoxy cures. Otherwise, the sample will tend to curl. This works to some degree, but once the sample area curls, it seldom re-turns to the original flatness without cracking or bending. Canada Balsam and Crystalbond: We repair damaged sections that had originally been prepared using Canada Balsam or Crystalbond adhesives through the gradual application of heat. We take great care with these samples since these bonding materials tend to get brittle with age. The section is heated in gradual steps (40-50o F per hour) to the melting point of the adhesive. We repair the sample while the adhesive is fluid and then the section is cooled in the same gradual manner in which it was heated. Slide Cracks and Breaks: Accidents happen. Especially with something as small and fragile as a thin/thick section. We all know someone who has driven a microscope objective into a section. As bad as the damage may look, the section can be repaired in most instances. NOTE: Please do not try to tape or glue section pieces back together prior to returning the dam-aged section. This practice usually renders the section irreparable. If the glass slide is cracked but the section is still in one piece, we repair it by infilling the crack with the low viscosity epoxy mentioned earlier. If the slide is in pieces, we can reassemble it with epoxy on a new backer slide. This is a tricky task as the pieces need to be in the correct plane with respect to each other, especially if the sample area is split among several pieces.

Meteorite↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Fabrication of Gecko Mobility Aids for Deep Space Exploration

Spacecraft large enough for crew to move around inside them have traditionally used handrails and foot restraints to enable crew mobility. The mass of this hardware can become significant in large spacecraft such as ISS or a Mars Transit Habitat. The Common Habitat study also determined that handrails and foot restraints in a multi-gravity habitat are trip hazards when the habitat is in a gravity environment. ISS crew have noted risks of breaking ankles and wrists when using handrails for translation and have noted places where not enough handrails are present. Robotic gecko-derived grippers developed by JPL to retrieve satellites can be adapted to crew-worn pads that can adhere to surfaces to enable crew translation in microgravity. This project will fabricate prototypes of crew clothing augmented with gecko pads.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Planetary Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocols using a 56.5 kPa, 34% O2, 66% N2 Saturation Cabin Atmosphere in an 11-day Hypobaric Hypoxia Study

INTRODUCTION: Apollo missions used 100% O2 cabin atmospheres which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during Lunar extravehicular activities (EVAs, ‘spacewalks’); however, this atmosphere presented a flammability risk that is no longer acceptable to NASA. Denitrogenation prebreathe protocols used to mitigate DCS risk for Space Shuttle and International Space Station EVAs are validated for the microgravity environment, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory surface EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary/Lunar missions. A cabin/vehicle “Exploration Atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA for future Moon and Mars missions as a compromise that balances subsequent pre-EVA prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. Prebreathe validation studies were initiated utilizing a three-story 6m diameter hypobaric chamber at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Here, we report the results of a 11-day human-in-the-loop system checkout. METHODS: Six volunteers lived in a hyboparic chamber for 11 days with an ‘exploration atmosphere’ of 56.6kPa/34% O2 66% N2. Subjects acclimated to the exploration atmosphere for 48hrs and thereafter participated in five 6-hour simulated EVAs at 34kPa/85% O2 / 15% N2 over the course of 11 days. Prior to each simulated EVA, subjects underwent a 20-minute prebreathe at 85% O2. The EVA simulation was designed to include tasks that are physically and ergonomically representative of future planetary EVAs, proportionate to the subject’s VO2max. Decompression stress was evaluated during the simulated EVA by serial doppler and echocardiographs alternating every 15min, as well as clinical monitoring for DCS signs/symptoms. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Venous gas emboli (VGE) were present in 3 of 6 subjects during EVAs, with peak Grade II VGE as evaluated by Doppler and a peak Eftedal-Brubakk score of 5 by cardiac ultrasonography. Two cases of DCS were diagnosed during the 11-day test chamber. No acute hypoxic symptoms were noted. Musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal complaints were noted, likely associated with the exercise load and the food system. Two cases of DCS (8%) does not cross either accept or reject pre-test criterion, so an additional study is planned for 2023 to meet our pre-test thresholds.

Alejandro Garbino↗
NASA NTRS2022

Wallops Flight Facility Integration and Testing Customer Handbook

The Wallops Integration and Testing Handbook is a guide for planning operations at Wallops testing facilities. It provides a summary of the capabilities and technical specifications of available facilities. This handbook prescribes the information to be provided by the user that will enable the integration and testing team to effectively plan for and support the facility user’s project. Note that each facility plans for availability based on current workloads/ mission schedules. For example, sounding rockets may have between 20 and 35 missions in work at one time. Also note that special training, such as cleanroom certification, electrostatic discharge (ESD) or confined space training may be required for entrance to some facilities.

Adam Hammoudi↗
NASA NTRS2023

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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gecko Mobility Aids for a Common Habitat Architecture

Spacecraft large enough for crew to move around inside them have traditionally used handrails and foot restraints to enable crew mobility. The mass of this hardware can become significant in large spacecraft such as the Common Habitat. Additionally, handrails and foot restraints in a multi-gravity habitat are trip hazards when the habitat is in a gravity environment. Further, ISS crew have noted risks of breaking ankles and wrists when using handrails for translation and have noted places where not enough handrails are present. Robotic gecko-derived grippers developed by JPL to retrieve satellites can be adapted to crew-worn pads that can adhere to surfaces to enable crew translation in microgravity. This technology will help to eliminate the need for handrails and foot restraints for mobility in crewed microgravity spacecraft cabins. It has the potential to achieve significant mass reductions in future space habitats, with application to suborbital flight, LEO, cislunar space, interplanetary space, the Moon, and Mars. Additionally, it can prevent crew injury and discomfort. Project goals and objectives are to prepare gecko uniform prototypes for use in multi-gravity testing and conduct initial investigations into human factors of postures and motions needed for intravehicular activity (IVA) translation and restraint in multiple gravity environments, without the use of handrails or foot restraints. Gecko grippers have been tested for use as robotic end effectors terrestrially, on microgravity aircraft, and aboard the ISS. Using the grippers as a body-mounted system to achieve IVA crew mobility is a new application that has not been pursued outside of this effort. This work will continue paper studies performed by NASA student interns by developing physical prototypes of spacecraft crew uniforms with gecko-derived body-mounted grippers. Clothing prototypes may include long sleeves, short sleeves, long pants, shorts, gloves, and/or booties equipped with gecko gripper pads. Forward work is to test these uniforms in a 1g environment to verify that the design does not introduce obstructions, trip hazards, or other consequences when used in terrestrial gravity. Based on the 1g test results, the uniform prototypes will be refined, and a test plan developed for testing at 0g, (1/6)g, and (3/8)g.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
NASA NTRS2023

Investigating Abrasion Effects of Lunar Simulant Grain Sizes on Candidate Spacesuit Fabric

Lunar dust is identified as one of the most significant challenges during the Apollo exploration missions due to its extremely abrasive and electrostatic characteristics. As NASA and the space industry prepare for the upcoming Artemis missions, researching and testing with lunar simulant is quintessential to understanding the effects of lunar dust on the systems and equipment that will be deployed on the lunar surface. Testing will also provide paths that lead to developing technologies and cleaning tools that could be used for dust mitigation. Additionally, it is expected that any hardware that will be exposed to the dusty environment should undergo rigorous testing to ensure it will maintain long-term performance and operate on the lunar surface. For this study, exterior spacesuit fabric was observed. Abrasion is one of the main concerns of lunar dust exposure for spacesuit fabric. Three different abrasion methods were chosen: a rotary tumbler, the Martindale method, and Accelerotor. These abrasion methods were tested on coated and uncoated spacesuit material, Orthofabric, to understand the abrasion rates of sieved lunar simulant and investigate if the addition of ceramic coating mitigated dust abrasion. To summarize, the testing results provided that larger grains are more abrasive than smaller grains, and the selected ceramic coatings did not minimize abrasion during the controlled abrasion tests. It is important to note that the selected ceramic coatings were not designed or intended to provide protection from the abrasive lunar environment. It is recommended to select additional ceramic coatings with an elevated TRL of 5 or greater for testing with Orthofabric and lunar simulant. As an additional note, contact angle measurements were not accounted for in coating selection and should be a factor when selecting adhesion resistant coatings for lunar dust.

grain size↗