Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “availability”

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 1,387 records · Page 77

Space Environments and Effects Program (SEE)

The need to preserve works and NASA documented articles is done via the collection of various Space Environments and Effects (SEE) related articles. (SEE) contains and lists the various projects that are ongoing, or have been conducted with the help of NASA. The goal of the (SEE) program is to make publicly available the environment technologies that are required to design, manufacture and operate reliable, cost-effective spacecraft for the government and commercial sectors. Of the many projects contained within the (SEE) program the Lunar-E Library and Spacecraft Materials Selector (SMS) have been selected for a more user friendly means to make the tools easily available to the public. This information which is still available required a person or entity to request access from a point of contact at NASA and wait for the requested bundled software DVD via postal service. Redesigning the material presentation and availability has been mapped to a single step process with faster turnaround time via Materials and Processes Technical Information System (MAPTIS) database. This process requires users to register and be verified in order to gain access to the information contained within. Aiding in the progression of making the software tools/documents available required a combination of specialized in-house data gathering software tools and software archeology.

Yhisreal-Rivas, David M.↗

Investigation of Spiral Bevel Gear Condition Indicator Validation via AC-29-2C Using Fielded Rotorcraft HUMS Data

This report presents the analysis of gear condition indicator data collected on a helicopter when damage occurred in spiral bevel gears. The purpose of the data analysis was to use existing in-service helicopter HUMS flight data from faulted spiral bevel gears as a Case Study, to better understand the differences between HUMS data response in a helicopter and a component test rig, the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Rig. The reason spiral bevel gear sets were chosen to demonstrate differences in response between both systems was the availability of the helicopter data and the availability of a test rig that was capable of testing spiral bevel gear sets to failure. The objective of the analysis presented in this paper was to re-process helicopter HUMS data with the same analysis techniques applied to the spiral bevel rig test data. The damage modes experienced in the field were mapped to the failure modes created in the test rig. A total of forty helicopters were evaluated. Twenty helicopters, or tails, experienced damage to the spiral bevel gears in the nose gearbox. Vibration based gear condition indicators data was available before and after replacement. The other twenty tails had no known anomalies in the nose gearbox within the time frame of the datasets. These twenty tails were considered the baseline dataset. The HUMS gear condition indicators evaluated included gear condition indicators (CI) Figure of Merit 4 (FM4), Root Mean Square (RMS) or Diagnostic Algorithm 1 (DA1) and +/- 3 Sideband Index (SI3). Three additional condition indicators, not currently calculated on-board, were calculated from the archived data. These three indicators were +/- 1 Sideband Index (SI1), the DA1 of the difference signal (DiffDA1) and the peak-to-peak of the difference signal (DP2P). Results found the CI DP2P, not currently available in the on-board HUMS, performed the best, responding to varying levels of damage on thirteen of the fourteen helicopters evaluated. Two additional CIs also not in the on-board system, DiffDA1and SI1, also performed well responding to twelve and ten of the fourteen helicopters evaluated respectively. Of the three CIs currently available in the MSPU, DA1, FM4 and SI3, SI3, responded to eight, DA1 responded to six and FM4 responded to four of the fourteen helicopters evaluated. FM4, the poorest performing CI, was not as responsive to damage as the other five CIs. Conversely, when compared to the other two, it was the only CI that responded to damage on two helicopters. CI response could not be correlated to specific failure modes due to limited pictures and subjective descriptions found within the TDA. Flight regime did affect CI response to some gear faults. Due to the range of operating conditions for each regime, more studies are required to determine their sensitivity to regimes.

rotorcraft↗

NASA Human System Risk Assessment Process

NASA utilizes an evidence based system to perform risk assessments for the human system for spaceflight missions. The center of this process is the multi-disciplinary Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The HSRB is chartered from the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) at NASA Headquarters. The HSRB reviews all human system risks via an established comprehensive risk and configuration management plan based on a project management approach. The HSRB facilitates the integration of human research (terrestrial and spaceflight), medical operations, occupational surveillance, systems engineering and many other disciplines in a comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB considers all factors that influence human risk. These factors include pre-mission considerations such as screening criteria, training, age, sex, and physiological condition. In mission factors such as available countermeasures, mission duration and location and post mission factors such as time to return to baseline (reconditioning), post mission health screening, and available treatments. All of the factors influence the total risk assessment for each human risk. The HSRB performed a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30, where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research and, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit for 6 and 12 months, deep space for 30 days and 1 year, a lunar mission for 1 year, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary two-page assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence of that risk, available risk mitigations, traceability to the Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS) and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the Human Research Program, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets to provide the most economical and timely mitigations. The risk assessments were completed for the 6 DRMs and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB reviews each risk at least annually or when new evidence/information is available that adds to the body of evidence. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Francisco, D.↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗

Real-Time Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station High-Resolution Model Implementation and Verification

Customer: NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP), Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO), and Space Launch System (SLS) programs. NASA's LSP, GSDO, SLS and other programs at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) use the daily and weekly weather forecasts issued by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) as decision tools for their day-to-day and launch operations on the Eastern Range (ER). For example, to determine if they need to limit activities such as vehicle transport to the launch pad, protect people, structures or exposed launch vehicles given a threat of severe weather, or reschedule other critical operations. The 45 WS uses numerical weather prediction models as a guide for these weather forecasts, particularly the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) 1.67 kilometer Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Considering the 45 WS forecasters' and Launch Weather Officers' (LWO) extensive use of the AFWA model, the 45 WS proposed a task at the September 2013 Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) Tasking Meeting requesting the AMU verify this model. Due to the lack of archived model data available from AFWA, verification is not yet possible. Instead, the AMU proposed to implement and verify the performance of an ER version of the AMU high-resolution WRF Environmental Modeling System (EMS) model (Watson 2013) in real-time. The tasking group agreed to this proposal; therefore the AMU implemented the WRF-EMS model on the second of two NASA AMU modeling clusters. The model was set up with a triple-nested grid configuration over KSC/CCAFS based on previous AMU work (Watson 2013). The outer domain (D01) has 12-kilometer grid spacing, the middle domain (D02) has 4-kilometer grid spacing, and the inner domain (D03) has 1.33-kilometer grid spacing. The model runs a 12-hour forecast every hour, D01 and D02 domain outputs are available once an hour and D03 is every 15 minutes during the forecast period. The AMU assessed the WRF-EMS 1.33-kilometer domain model performance for the 2014 warm season (May-September). Verification statistics were computed using the Model Evaluation Tools, which compared the model forecasts to observations. The mean error values were close to 0 and the root mean square error values were less than 1.8 for mean sea-level pressure (millibars), temperature (degrees Kelvin), dewpoint temperature (degrees Kelvin), and wind speed (per millisecond), all very small differences between the forecast and observations considering the normal magnitudes of the parameters. The precipitation forecast verification results showed consistent under-forecasting of the precipitation object size. This could be an artifact of calculating the statistics for each hour rather than for the entire 12-hour period. The AMU will continue to generate verification statistics for the 1.33-kilometer WRF-EMS domain as data become available in future cool and warm seasons. More data will produce more robust statistics and reveal a more accurate assessment of model performance. Once the formal task was complete, the AMU conducted additional work to better understand the wind direction results. The results were stratified diurnally and by wind speed to determine what effects the stratifications would have on the model wind direction verification statistics. The results are summarized in the addendum at the end of this report. In addition to verifying the model's performance, the AMU also made the output available in the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System II (AWIPS II). This allows the 45 WS and AMU staff to customize the model output display on the AMU and Range Weather Operations AWIPS II client computers and conduct real-time subjective analyses. In the future, the AMU will implement an updated version of the WRF-EMS model that incorporates local data assimilation. This model will also run in real-time and be made available in AWIPS II.

Numerical Weather Prediction↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗

Spaceflight Biospecimen and Data Sharing in Support of Science Discovery and Exploration

For decades, NASA and international partners have conducted biological experiments in space to understand effects of spaceflight and address potential hazards. To enable spaceflight back to the Moon, and then to Mars and beyond, it is imperative to further understand basic science and health risks associated with spaceflight, along with developing countermeasures. The sending of experiments and organisms into space is a costly endeavor. To maximize scientific return, sharing with the scientific community both space-flown biospecimens and data from completed experiments is essential. New fundamental, applied, and bioinformatic science insights can be gained from specimen and data sharing efforts. Data reuse enables spaceflight health risk modeling, analyzing adverse outcomes across spaceflight hazards, and deep space autonomous support for the flight medical officer. Space-flown biospecimens not required by mission Principal Investigators are regularly archived and made available for scientific request. The largest biorepository of these samples are found within NASA’s Institutional Scientific Collection at Ames Research Center (ISC-ARC), which stores over 32,000 specimens mostly from Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) missions, but also some ground-based analog samples. The Ames Life Sciences Data Archive manages the ISC-ARC. Tissues are predominantly from mice and rats, though samples are also available from bacteria and quail. Only a handful of other similar collections exist worldwide. Rodent biospecimens exposed to simulated space radiation at Brookhaven National Laboratory are archived under the purview of NASA HRP Space Radiation Element. Microbial collection and analyses from 20 years of routine environmental monitoring of air, surfaces, and water systems of the ISS were performed to ensure a safe environment for astronauts. Samples from the ISC-ARC, space radiation and microbial collections are searchable and requestable through the NASA Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA). Decades of planetary protection microbial isolates derived from spacecraft bioburden are archived in JPL’s microbial collection. Rodent biospecimens from spaceflight investigations conducted by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) are archived and available at the JAXA Biorepository at Tsukuba Space Center. The Russian Institute of Biomedical Problems also has a collection of animal, microbial, cellular, and fungi available for research from ground analog experiments. Several data repositories exist for scientists to utilize. The LSDA is the primary NASA source of life sciences research data and information. It contains decades of spaceflight and ground-analog research involving human, microbial, cellular, plant, and animal subjects. Data is collected from NASA-funded investigations through the Human Research Program and the Space Biology Program. The NASA Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health collects and grants access to clinical and occupational health monitoring data from astronauts, with a list and description of data collected available for request through the LSDA. NASA GeneLab at ARC collects genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data from any species. It is a repository and platform for collaborative open-science bioinformatic approaches. JAXA is establishing an ‘omics-based repository in collaboration with the Tohoku Medical Megabank (ToMMo), called the JAXA-ToMMo Integrated Biobank for Space Life Science. Overall, the sharing of these biospecimen and data resources can assist researchers worldwide in understanding spaceflight effects on biology, along with enabling next generation data science applications for space exploration platforms. Websites: https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/ ; https://www.nasa.gov/ames/research/space-biosciences/isc-bsp ; https://www.nasa.gov/ames/research/space-biosciences/alsda

Ryan T. Scott↗

Scheduling Position, Navigation and Time Service Requests from Non-dedicated Lunar Constellations

This paper presents a centralized scheduler that satisfies user requests for Position, Navigation, and Time (PNT) services from an ad-hoc, non-dedicated orbital constellation around the Moon. Traditional, dedicated GNSS networks provide service 24/7, which allows users to acquire localization services at-will. For ad-hoc networks, a coordinated schedule is needed to ensure Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees for user localization, while satisfying non-dedicated assets’ usage constraints. This scheduler bridges this coordination gap by leveraging Mixed Integer-Linear Programming (MILP) to schedule this “as-needed” localization service while respecting the constraints on each asset. In upcoming decades there is expected to be a substantial increase in Lunar missions. Many of these missions will feature low-cost surface assets near the moon’s polar regions and small-sat science missions in orbit. Most missions need PNT capabilities to ensure safe operations and meet their science objectives, but low-cost missions may not be able to support the large power, mass, and weight that a weak GNSS or DSN based navigation solution would entail. Asset localization has been demonstrated using a decentralized extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) in the previously presented Lunar Autonomous PNT System (LAPS). Within the LAPS simulation environment, a module has been developed to generate the coordinated user-asset schedules described above; this Service Scheduler Module (SSM) allows for complete end-to-end testing of the entire system. Within SSM, a user service request consists of a location on the Lunar surface, a cumulative service duration, and a window in which service must occur. SSM takes as input these requests and the LAPS-predicted positional degree of precision as the QoS for each available set of orbital assets. A simple, baseline MILP model is formulated to provide the highest-precision service balanced across all requests. To reflect the non-dedicated nature of the constellation, this baseline model is augmented with additional asset-specific load capacity constraints or availability constraints. The load capacity constraints limit total time spent providing service, and the availability constraints reflect blockout times or availability windows when the assets are not otherwise occupied. SSM outputs two schedules: the user schedule to indicate their service times and expected QoS, and a satellite schedule to be transmitted to the orbiting constellation, describing when each non-dedicated asset provides PNT service. SSM is predominantly implemented in MATLAB and allows the use of any MILP solver to generate the resulting schedules. This paper describes the SSM - LAPS interface, how the output of LAPS is used to construct the MILP, and how SSM provides user localization service while satisfying constraints. It will also demonstrate the tool’s flexibility for formulating schedules for the end user and the constellation, focusing on scenarios that match real-world proposed missions. It will detail how SSM can be used to compare the addition of load capacity constraints, satellite availability constraints, and QoS guarantees for the users. Finally, we describe how SSM can be used to support the design of the ad-hoc constellation itself. The resulting integrated capability will support the design of future ad-hoc Lunar PNT networks, enabling high-quality, low-cost Lunar exploration

Swarm↗

Super-Resolution from Space: Using MERRA-2 and MAIAC Satellite Imagery to Produce Daily Continuous 1 km PM2.5 Estimates

PM2.5 measurements from ground stations are the gold standard when available, but the expense and coverage of such stations limits widespread monitoring. Having accurate PM2.5 estimates outside the range of these stations is important for monitoring this crucial aspect of air quality. The goal of this project is to produce daily 1 km continuous PM2.5 estimates for the contiguous US relying primarily on satellite-derived data sources. This is important because models based on such data can be more easily expanded outside the study area and produce global estimates as well. The temporal availability of such data products is often weekly/daily, unlike land-use products with are often available at a yearly or worse temporal resolution. To achieve our goal, we use a couple of different deep neural network architectures to produce PM2.5 measurements at 10 km and 1 km resolution. We use two model architectures, a UNET-like model and a GAN-based model. We train both models using MERRA-2 data and MAIAC AOD data scaled to 10 km and 1 km for the two different prediction resolutions. MERRA-2 imagery is data rich with a wide range of geospatial variables at 50 km and has long historical availability (beginning in 1980). We’re also using higher spatial resolution MAIAC data at 1 km to provide finer resolution spatial context. This essentially leverages the spatial resolution of MAIAC data and the “wider” information of MERRA-2 data to predict PM2.5. For the target data we’re using a modeled 1 km PM2.5 dataset produced by Harvard to pre-train our models and then fine-tune our models using ground station measurements. Not only are our results comparable with the performance of the Harvard dataset, but can be generalized to any area or time where MERRA-2 and MAIAC data is available.

satellite imagery↗

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↗

Assessing the Needs of NASA's Near Real-Time Earth Observation Products

"The 2017-2027 Decadal Survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space stated that NASA's Earth Science with planned implementation of applications provides sustained earth observations for societal benefits [1]. The Decadal Survey indicated that data latency is invaluable for time-sensitive applications including disaster risk reduction, wildland fire carbon emissions quantification, real-time measurements of the state of the hydrologic systems and many more. Data latency refers to the time between earth observation and data products available to users. During the past 13 years, NASA's Land, Atmosphere Near Real-Time Capability for Earth Observing Systems (LANCE) continues to provide free access to earth observation products that are made available much quicker than routine processing allows. The latency of most LANCE data products is Near Real-time (NRT) which is defined as less than three hours from satellite observations [2]. LANCE is managed by the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [3], and a User Working Group (UWG) is responsible for providing guidance to LANCE. LANCE data are used by direct users and brokers who add value to the data [4]. NASA Earth Applied Sciences Program (ASP) is one of the primary users of LANCE, which collaborates with partner organizations and provides support to scientists to solve problems in applications of earth observations. ASP promotes the use of LANCE NRT data products to demonstrate applications in decision making, facilitates end-user feedback to the science team to improve data products, and provides information on future demands for research. LANCE supports applications that need a rapid response including detecting wildland fires and volcanic eruptions, tracking smoke, ash and dust plumes, monitoring air quality and tracking extreme weather events such as hurricanes, landslides, and floods. To gather feedback regarding the availability, accessibility and actionability of NASA's NRT data products for societal benefit, three surveys and a few discussions with experts involved in the topic within ASP were conducted from the perspective of users. Feedback has been collected from users who are interested in using low latency NASA data within application communities of agriculture, disasters, water resources, health and air quality, ecological conservation, wildland fires and capacity building. Analysis-ready NRT data products in a variety of formats have been mentioned many times in the collected feedback, especially for applied users with little to no experience using research-grade earth observation products. Users prefer to have products that can be easily integrated into their existing workflows and take their analysis to the data. HDF5 is a commonly used data format for research, but typically requires some conversion to a more friendly format for applications and regular use in decision-making. Users prefer the GeoTIFF data format that can be directly ingested into a GIS mapping software and platform for data analysis and visualization. For example, LANCE’s fire, flood, SO2 and Black Marble Nighttime Blue/Yellow Composite data products have been integrated into NASA Disasters Mapping Portal, which is an GIS-based open data portal, for users in the disaster management community. There are 291 LANCE NRT layers available through GIBS and Worldview, where users can download a snapshot in GeoTIFF format. Operational users expect data to be processed as close to the user as possible. The collected feedback indicates that LANCE fire products within 3 hours latency would meet the needs of the wildland fire community. The ideal latency for volcanic application is 10-15 minutes. Users in Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAAC) reported that the first forecast volcanic product should be issued within 75 minutes from the volcano eruption [5]. Overall, for disaster applications, data latency within 3 hours is useful while latency greater than 12 hours is not timely enough for operational use. Capacity building and training are critical for users to be able to access, interpret and use data products and tools for their decision making, especially for applied users with limited experience using earth observation products. LANCE data products have been used in a number of capacity building projects domestically and internationally [6]. As LANCE continues to bring new products into the system, users request training to utilize LANCE new and upcoming data products and capabilities in their applications. Due to the limitation of bandwidth and downstream flow paths, users in some developing countries need tools to select and download data for a specific area of interest instead of bulk downloads. The collected feedback also shows the lack of available SAR satellite low latency data products. The advantages of SAR to monitor conditions and changes on the ground through darkness, clouds, volcanic ash, and other atmospheric conditions, are appealing to low latency users. For example, terabytes of low latency but cloudy optical images are not helpful in rapidly identifying the extent of flood or fire impacts. LANCE could be complemented with low latency measurements via the upcoming NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission [7]. Requests for higher spatial resolution products are expressed. A user from the wildland fire management community reported that products with 30-m spatial resolution could be used to detect small fires. The 30-m Landsat OLI fire data is now part of NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) US/Canada [8]. Within the open and free NASA resources, LANCE disseminates NRT data products in a manner that allows them to be accessible and understandable to both scientific and applied users. In many application areas, latency plays an important or even decisive role where low latency earth observations help people to observe areas of interest, detect and track changes in the environment and make timely decisions. NASA’s Earth Applied Sciences Program promotes the use of LANCE NRT products and builds a bridge between application users and research teams. The collected feedback indicates data latency within 3 hours is useful for most of the applications, and shows the needs of user-friendly, analysis-ready products, and requests training on LANCE’s new and upcoming data products. User feedback has been provided to LANCE UWG for guidance and recommendations, and for translating findings into something actionable.

Tian Yao↗

Creating Benchmark Data for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Space Biology Research

To identify an appropriate AI/ML approach for a specific problem, the best practice is to measure algorithm performance through the benchmarking process. A scientific benchmark consists of an AI-ready dataset and a reference implementation on a specific scientific question. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) has started the “Benchmark Initiative for AI/ML to create scientific benchmark datasets in three applications: 1) scientific benchmarking, which finds the best algorithm for a specific problem; 2) application benchmarking, which measures algorithm performance against a set of parameters; and 3) system benchmarking, which evaluates performance of hardware and software architecture. Currently, there are no standardized datasets available to benchmark AI/ML algorithms in the domain of space biology. In this work, we constructed two AI/ML-ready biological datasets from experiments in space-flown mice: cellular imaging and RNA-seq. First, radiation-exposed immune cells harbor DNA damage foci that can be fluorescently marked to visualize the amount of damage following exposure to ionizing radiation. However, such large datasets are difficult to analyze visually, due to imaging inconsistencies and human bias, and classical image processing approaches can fail on imaging artifacts. AI/ML are therefore exciting alternative, providing the speed of machines and the accuracy of humans. We have made this dataset available at https://registry.opendata.aws/bps_microscopy/. Second, high-throughput nucleic acid sequencing (DNA-seq, RNA-seq) has become widespread in biomedical research due to the growing availability and affordability of these assays. However, most sequencing datasets suffer from high dimensionality and low sample count. In this work, we used a generative adversarial network to synthesize a standardized, AI-ready, publicly available benchmark dataset for space biology RNA-seq data with sufficient space-flown and ground control mouse liver samples from NASA GeneLab. This dataset is available at https://registry.opendata.aws/bps_rnaseq/. These datasets are now fully open the Space Biology community to test their favorite AI/ML approaches.

James Casaletto↗

Exploration Exercise System (EES) Physiology

Exploration class missions will be required to have an exercise device that is lightweight, has a small footprint, and is capable of providing enough physical stimulus and exercise variability to be an effective countermeasure against muscle, bone, aerobic fitness, and sensorimotor loss that results from the microgravity environment. Ground studies, inflight studies, and results analyses are required to inform Moon2Mars Design Reference Missions (DRMs) and vehicle designs. This activity encompasses two related projects, an evaluation study called Zero T2 and a requirements development for an exploration treadmill (ET). Exploration class missions’ mass/power/volume restrictions have resulted in the development of exercise devices that are motorized and flywheel-based to provide both aerobic and resistive training on one platform. These devices provide a variety of full body resistance exercise options as well as rowing and cycling for aerobic exercise, but do not provide ambulatory exercise via a treadmill. Because a treadmill has been available for use on the ISS since 2001, we do not understand the efficacy of exploration exercise modalities on muscle performance, aerobic fitness, bone health, or sensorimotor performance. A retrospective study was performed to quantify the association between total exercise (including specific contributions of treadmill exercise) and functional performance upon landing. Due to the relatively small variation in treadmill usage inflight, there is a need to do a controlled study where inflight crewmembers will not use the ISS treadmill (called T2) for the duration of their flights. There will be 3 arms to the Zero T2 study: 1) participants use all currently available exercise platforms aboard ISS (control group), 2) participants use only ARED and CEVIS, and 3) participants use only European Enhanced Exploration Device (E4D). (Please see the TechPort Entry for Exploration Exercise System Development for further detail on the E4D.) This study started in Oct 2020 and will continue through Sep 2027. In a parallel effort, a team will be developing requirements for an exploration treadmill. This project will be broken into two phases. Phase 1 will develop and implement energy prediction models based on available in-flight exercise data to quantify energy expenditure during 0g treadmill running. Phase 2 will then use the available biomechanical and metabolic evidence from Phase 1 to determine the hardware specification requirements essential to providing the desired exercise stimulus. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) will then leverage the Standardized Process for Evaluating Exercise Devices (SPEED) developed by the team to 1) assess available technologies for candidate treadmills which meet defined requirements, 2) perform hands-on evaluations of top candidates, 3) provide evaluation outcomes and recommendations to developers. This project will begin in 2025 and continue through Sep 2030.

Kent Lawrence Kalogera↗

State-of-the-Art Small Spacecraft Technology

The objective of this report is to assess and provide an overview of the state of the art in small spacecraft technologies for use by mission designers, project managers, technologists, and students, connecting current small spacecraft missions to available technologies. This report focuses on the spacecraft system in its entirety, provides current best practices for integration and key considerations for the reader where possible, and presents devices from publicly available sources for each specific spacecraft subsystem. This report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it is not an original source. In addition, this report only considers literature in the public domain. Information presented in this report is limited to SmallSat technology that is publicly available as of September 30, 2024. It does not include information on instrumentation, science payloads, or advances or developments that have not been publicly disclosed. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer data sheets, 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. We encourage the SmallSat community to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones in publicly available conference papers, press releases, or company websites so they can be reflected in future editions of this report. This report is funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). It was first commissioned by the Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program within NASA’s STMD in mid2012 in response to the rapid growth in interest in using small spacecraft for low-Earth orbit, lowcost missions. The report was subsequently updated in 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 to capture SmallSat technology growth and maturation. In addition to reporting currently available state-of-the-art technologies that have achieved Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 or above, a prognosis is provided describing technologies as "on the horizon" if they are being considered for future application.

Sasha V Weston↗

Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km Grid for North America, Version 2.

More information: http://daymet.ornl.gov Presenter: Ranjeet Devarakonda Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data and Climatological Summaries provides gridded estimates of daily weather parameters for North America, including daily continuous surfaces of minimum and maximum temperature, precipitation occurrence and amount, humidity, shortwave radiation, snow water equivalent, and day length. The current data product (Version 2) covers the period January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2013 [1]. The prior product (Version 1) only covered from 1980-2008. Data are available on a daily time step at a 1-km x 1-km spatial resolution in Lambert Conformal Conic projection with a spatial extent that covers the conterminous United States, Mexico, and Southern Canada as meteorological station density allows. Daymet data can be downloaded from 1) the ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) search and order tools (http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/cart/add2cart.pl?add=1219) or directly from the DAAC FTP site (http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=1219) and 2) the Single Pixel Tool [2] and THREDDS (Thematic Real-time Environmental Data Services) Data Server [3]. The Single Pixel Data Extraction Tool allows users to enter a single geographic point by latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. A routine is executed that translates the (lon, lat) coordinates into projected Daymet (x,y) coordinates. These coordinates are used to access the Daymet database of daily-interpolated surface weather variables. Daily data from the nearest 1 km x 1 km Daymet grid cell are extracted from the database and formatted as a table with one column for each Daymet variable and one row for each day. All daily data for selected years are returned as a single (long) table, formatted for display in the browser window. At the top of this table is a link to the same data in a simple comma-separated text format, suitable for import into a spreadsheet or other data analysis software. The Single Pixel Data Extraction Tool also provides the option to download multiple coordinates programmatically. A multiple extractor script is freely available to download at http://daymet.ornl.gov/files/daymet.zip. The ORNL DAAC s THREDDS data server (TDS) provides customized visualization and access to Daymet time series of North American mosaics. Users can subset and download Daymet data via a variety of community standards, including OPeNDAP, NetCDF Subset service, and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Web Map/Coverage Service. The ORNL DAAC TDS also exposes Daymet metadata through its ncISO service to facilitate harvesting Daymet metadata records into 3rd party catalogs. References: [1] Thornton, P.E., M.M. Thornton, B.W. Mayer, N. Wilhelmi, Y. Wei, R. Devarakonda, and R.B. Cook. 2014. Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km Grid for North America, Version 2. Data set. Available on-line [http://daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. [2] Devarakonda R., et al. 2012. Daymet: Single Pixel Data Extraction Tool. Available on-line [http://daymet.ornl.go/singlepixel.html]. [3] Wei Y., et al. 2014. Daymet: Thematic Real-time Environmental Data Services. Available on-line [http://daymet.ornl.gov/thredds_tiles.html].

Thornton, Peter E↗

An assessment of CFD-based wall heat transfer models in piston engines

The lack of accurate submodels for in-cylinder heat transfer has been identified as a key shortcoming in developing truly predictive, physics-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models that can be used to develop combustion systems for advanced high-efficiency, low-emissions engines. Only recently have experimental methods become available that enable accurate near-wall measurements to enhance simulation capability via advancing models. Initial results show crank-angle dependent discrepancies with respect to previously used boundary-layer models of up to 100%. However, available experimental data is quite sparse (only few data points on engine walls) and limited (available measurements are those of heat flux only). Predictive submodels are needed for medium-resolution ("engineering") LES and for unsteady Reynolds-averaged simulations (URANS). Recently, some research groups have performed DNS studies on engine-relevant conditions using simple geometries. These provide very useful data for benchmarking wall heat transfer models under such conditions. Further, a number of new and more sophisticated models have also become available in the literature which account for these engine-like conditions. Some of these have been incorporated while others of a more complex nature, which include solving additional partial differential equations (PDEs) within the thin boundary layer near the wall, are underway. These models will then be tested against the available DNS/experimental data in both SI (spark-ignition) and CI (compression-ignition) engines.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Development of Membrane Distillation Technology Utilizing Waste Heat for Treatment of High Salinity Wastewaters

Membrane distillation (MD) can serve as a cost effective method to treat high salinity wastewaters, especially if waste heat is utilized for its operation. The goal of this work is to study the feasibility of employing MD technology for the treatment of high salinity wastewaters which are generated as a result of natural gas production and active reservoir management for CO 2 sequestration. This study also aimed at quantifying the availability of waste heat which could be used as the primary source of thermal energy to drive the MD process. Bench scale studies were carried out with several commercially available membranes using both synthetic and actual high salinity wastewaters. The membranes tested with real wastewater samples exhibited excellent rejection of dissolved ions, including naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Long term bench scale experiments with real produced water from the Marcellus shale play revealed that iron oxide could precipitate on the feed side of direct contact MD (DCMD) module but had a negligible effect on the performance of the system. Based on the bench scale experiments, an ASPEN Plus simulation, which incorporated a mathematical model with fundamental heat and mass transfer equations, was developed and used to evaluate the process energy requirements. Despite low operating temperature and pressure for MD, it had a large thermal energy requirement for operation, which could make this technology expensive compared to reverse osmosis (RO) and forward osmosis (FO). However, it is important to note that RO and FO have limited applicability for high salinity shale gas wastewater. Moreover, MD could be integrated with renewable energy sources such as wind or solar energy or industrial waste heat sources to offset the thermal energy requirements and enhance the economics of wastewater treatment. Natural gas compressor stations (NG CS) have been proposed in this study as the source of waste heat based on the estimate of quantity and quality of available waste heat in the exhaust streams of gas turbine and internal combustion compressor engines. Using the actual installed capacity and location of compressor stations in the U.S., this analysis revealed that an average of 610 TJ/day of thermal energy is available at existing NG CS and that this source of waste heat is of high quality with temperatures above 645 K. A systems-level integration of MD with waste heat from NG CS revealed that approximately 56% of available waste heat at NG CS in Pennsylvania is sufficient to concentrate (from 10% to 30% salinity) all wastewater associated with shale gas extraction. Techno-economic assessment (TEA) accounting for capital as well as operating and maintenance costs with and without waste heat integration was conducted for a hypothetical 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) DCMD plant using experimental and modeling results from this study. TEA revealed that the total cost of shale gas wastewater treatment using MD is $5.7/m 3 feed for the base case scenario in which the thermal energy requirements are met by external steam, however, the total cost can be reduced to $0.74/m 3 feed when integrated with free waste heat from NG CS. Sensitivity analysis revealed that thermal energy cost and feed TDS are the most important factors in total cost of high salinity wastewater treatment using DCMD.

03 NATURAL GAS↗