Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NPR”

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 145 records · Page 8

FUN3D and USM3D Analysis of the 4th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop Nozzle Test Case

This work presents the results of FUN3D and USM3D analyses that were performed for the 4th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop. The workshop was separated into three sections that focus on internal duct flows, nozzle flows, and a special topic of interest. This paper focuses on the nozzle section while an accompanying paper discusses the analyses performed for the internal duct flow section. For the nozzle flow section, the participants were provided with two configurations consisting of a rectangular convergent nozzle with and without an aft-deck. User-generated grids were developed under the guidelines of the workshop for the present analyses. The results show that both solvers compare favorably to the experimental results for the baseline nozzle with the largest differences observed at the lower NPR values. Additionally, both solvers showed favorable agreement with the experimental data for the pressures on the surface of the aft-deck. However, neither solver was able to match the jet flow further downstream for the nozzle with aft-deck configuration. A turbulence model study was conducted to compare the two-equation SST model, SA-QCR model, and two-equation k-kL model (FUN3D only). The results show that the SA-QCR turbulence model was unable to match the experimental results downstream of the nozzle. The k-kL model was shown to better match the experimental data compared to the SST model for most cases simulated using the FUN3D flow solver. Suggestions for future workshops include gridding guidelines similar ion Workshop series for the grid refinement study and a reduction in scope to allow for more detailed exploration of the individual problems. rticipation by reducing time requirements

Bozeman, Michael D.↗

Guidance for Human Error Analysis (HEA)

NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.2C requires Program Managers to conduct a human error analysis (HEA) for all mission phases. The purpose of the HEA is to enable programs to understand and manage potential catastrophic hazards that could be caused by human error, understand the relative risks and uncertainties within the system design, and influence decisions throughout the system lifecycle. This document provides guidance to NASA civil servants and contractors on how the Agency’s HEA requirement can be fulfilled.

Human Error Analysis; NASA Procedural Requirement;↗

Unsteady Pressure Measurement on a Simplified High-Lift Configuration of the Common Research Model using Active Flow Control

The High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) is a product of the NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Project intended to study various high-lift aerodynamic phenomena including enhanced lift, acoustic noise generation, and optimum placement of leading and trailing-edge devices. The current study was conducted in the NASA Langley 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14x22) for the purpose of evaluating enhanced lift through the use of active flow control (AFC). The current paper documents the effect of sweeping-jet actuation combined with steady blowing on a simplified high-lift configuration using unsteady pressure measurements. The time-series parameters for the measurements are documented as well as the data acquisition system used to acquire the data. An uncertainty analysis will be presented in order to document the system performance and provide an estimate of the data quality. Repeatability of the data will be shown along with trends associated with model angle of attack, and those associated with changes in the nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) of the AFC system.

Common Research Model↗

Unsteady Pressure Measurements on a Simplified High-Lift Configuration of the Common Research Model using Active Flow Control

The High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) is a product of the NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Project intended to study various high-lift aerodynamic phenomena including enhanced lift, acoustic noise generation, and optimum placement of leading and trailing-edge devices. The current study was conducted in the NASA Langley 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14x22) for the purpose of evaluating enhanced lift through the use of active flow control (AFC). The current paper documents the effect of sweeping-jet actuation combined with steady blowing on a simplified high-lift configuration using unsteady pressure measurements. The time-series parameters for the measurements are documented as well as the data acquisition system used to acquire the data. An uncertainty analysis will be presented in order to document the system performance and provide an estimate of the data quality. Repeatability of the data will be shown along with trends associated with model angle of attack, and also those associated with changes in the nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) of the AFC system.

Active Flow Control↗

Implementation Requirements for Nasa Approved Workmanship Standards

This NASA technical standard provides uniform engineering and technical requirements for processes, procedures, practices, and methods that have been endorsed as standard for NASA facilities, programs, and projects, including requirements for selecting, applying, and designing hardware for manufacturability and reliability. This standard establishes NASA workmanship requirements, and clarifications, additions, and exceptions to requirements specified in NASA adopted industry consensus standards identified as required for use by NPR 8735.2, Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Programs and Projects

workmanship standards↗

Impact, a Tool Suite for Crew Health and Performance System Trade Analyses and Decision Support - Status of Development

Mission planners, systems engineers, and clinicians that support crew health and performance face very difficult choices on upcoming exploration missions. Given that there will be a heavily constrained mass and volume allocation for a medical system on these missions, what medical capability should be manifested to minimize both medical risk and mission risk? Given that not all promising research and technology proposals can be funded, how can proposals be prioritized so that those funded research investments produce the maximum benefit in reducing overall medical risk? The Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) project seeks to answer these kinds of questions and others to support upcoming exploration missions. IMPACT enables risk-informed and evidence-based trade space analysis for future space vehicles, missions, and systems. This presentation will discuss the long-term HRP and ExMC vision for the larger ecosystem of tools, which include an updated medical database (consisting of an Evidence Library for medical conditions and a medical item database (MedID) for medical resources), dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities, System Modeling Language (SysML) models, and contextual data visualizations of output data. IMPACT is the result of a multi-center collaborative effort. The trade space analyses performed by IMPACT can directly inform mission, vehicle, and habitat development by quantifying medical risk, given a design reference mission, crew attributes and a set of medical capabilities. This presentation will update the audience on the development status of the tool suite, its constituent parts and the plans for when it will deploy as an operational product, currently scheduled for the end of FY22. Recent development successes on the IMPACT project include the ability to cluster medical resources into medical capabilities and mutually-dependent bundles, the ability to perform trade analyses on different medical sets, different DRMs, and different crew complements, and the ability to specify mission segments as periods of time assigned to one or more members of the crew during which unique mission events occur (e.g., extravehicular activities, surface operations, gravity well adaptations, etc.). IMPACT is gearing up for its verification and validation phase to compile the data package necessary for a successful Transition to Operations (TtO), per the guidance in NPR 8900.1B .

IMPACT↗

Planetary Protection Lunar Policy: A Case Study in Balancing COSPAR Guidelines, Scientific Consensus, NASA Policy, and Mission Implementation

With the increase of missions to the Earth’s Moon over the next decade, NASA initiated an assessment and review of the policy and protection of Earth’s Moon to enable scientific exploration. The assessment involved gathering scientific consensus regarding the Earth’s Moon and proposed mission operations considering an understanding of the desired science needs for the Moon. This process involved seeking advice from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NASEM) Committee on Planetary Protection, engagement with the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Planetary Protection Panel (PPP), and consultation within NASA. To begin this process, NASA issued a NASA Interim Directive (NID) 8715.128 entitled, “Planetary Protection Categorization for Robotic and Crewed Missions to the Earth’s Moon” in July of 2019. This NID defined sensitive regions (e.g., permanently shadowed regions) on the Moon and required reporting on missions to these sensitive areas. Meanwhile, a NASEM study on the impact of human activities on lunar polar volatiles and the scientific value of protecting the surface and subsurface regions of the Earth’s Moon from organic and biological contamination was initiated. This resulted in a NASEM report entitled, “Planetary Protection for the Study of Lunar Volatiles” which enabled further dialogue within NASA and with COSPAR. COSPAR PPP then leveraged this scientific consensus along with multi-agency input to develop an updated COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection in June 2021 resulting in updated mission categorizations for Earth’s Moon (existing Category II for orbiters, and new categories IIa and IIb for landed missions). NASA then updated its current planetary protection policy to apply directly to NASA and NASA partnered missions in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8715.24 entitled, “Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions”. Along with the policy update NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection has worked with mission and programmatic teams to streamline reporting requirements to a simplified checkbox and fill-in-the-blank type of template. Throughout the abovementioned process, open and transparent communication between the policy makers and implementers was essential to ensure a balance with the updated policy, scientific intent, and practicality for each mission to be responsive and achieve mission success, including Artemis I and each of its secondary payloads, Gateway, CAPSTONE and Lunar Trailblazer.

James Benardini↗

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↗

Updates in Developing a Prototype Science Pipeline and Full-Volume, Global Hyperspectral Synthetic Data Sets for NASA’s Earth System Observatory’s Upcoming Surface, Biology and Geology Mission

The Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) mission recently passed mission confirmation review and has entered phase A – design and development. SBG will acquire high resolution solar-reflected spectroscopy and thermal infrared observations at a data rate of ~2.5 TB/day and generate products at ~40 TB/day. Given that the per-day volume is greater than NASA’s total extant airborne hyperspectral data collection, collecting, processing, disseminating, and exploiting the SBG data present new challenges. To meet these challenges, we have developed a prototype science pipeline and a full-volume global hyperspectral synthetic data set to help prepare for SBG’s flight (see poster GC42D-0730). Our science pipeline is based on the science processing technology developed for NASA’s Kepler and TESS planet-hunting missions. The pipeline infrastructure, Ziggy, provides a scalable architecture for robust, repeatable, and replicable science and application products that can be run on a range of systems from a laptop to the cloud or a supercomputer. Ziggy is compliant with NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7150.2C, is at a technical readiness level (TRL) of 7 and has been released to github.com/nasa/ziggy. We integrated Ziggy with EO-1/Hyperion workflows to build a prototype pipeline and ingested the 17-year mission archive that provides globally sampled visible through shortwave infrared spectra that are representative of SBG data types and volumes. We fully implemented the first stage and processed the entire 55 TB Hyperion data set from the raw data (Level 0) to top-of-the-atmosphere radiance (Level 1R). We are currently evaluating the ISOFIT atmospheric correction module to convert the L1R data to surface reflectance (Level 2) before reprocessing the full data set to L2. Crosschecks are being performed with RadCalNet as well as with coincident observations by AVIRIS. We are also investigating modern methods for georectifying the Hyperion scenes. Finally, we describe an analysis of the cost to conduct forward processing and reprocessing campaigns for SBG on HECC with dedicated compute and storage resources using the resurrected Hyperion pipeline as a proxy for full-volume SBG data. The analysis demonstrates that SBG L0 data can be processed to L2 on HECC with full reprocessing campaigns every two years for ~$2.6M over a 7-year lifespan. Moreover, 69% of the system capacity would be available for other activities, possibly enabling future open-source science activities, including algorithm development, L3+ processing, .etc.

ESD↗

Information and Best Practices Related to NASA Nuclear Flight Safety for Space Flights Involving Space Nuclear Systems

The purpose of this handbook is to facilitate a repeatable and robust process that promotes clear and effective interfaces between activities and stakeholders focused on meeting nuclear flight safety requirements for missions utilizing space nuclear systems (SNS), within the context of NASA’s broader nuclear-related activities and interfaces. NPR 8715.26, Nuclear Flight Safety, requires that the NASA project manager “incorporate nuclear flight safety considerations starting with program or project formulation through the point at which the SNS or other radioactive material no longer has the potential to affect Earth’s biosphere.” NASA’s use of SNS inherently involves partnering with other stakeholders to conduct a range of related activities that interface with nuclear flight safety. From a categorical perspective these include: (i) meeting the authorities and licensing requirements for possession and use of nuclear material, as governed by other Federal authorities; (ii) conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities for nuclear-enabled missions; (iii) meeting Federal nuclear launch authorization requirements; (iv) conducting radiological contingency planning activities, including those associated with international commitments; (v) performing risk communication and public outreach activities; and (vi) ensuring decommissioning and disposal strategies reflect National policies and interests. It is the intent of this handbook to promote an effective interface between nuclear flight safety and these interrelated categorical activities. In addition to activities undertaken with partnering agencies, there are individual nuclear-related activities and programs that have a nexus to nuclear flight safety, and these include: (i) applicable NASA Standing Review Boards; (ii) the US Department of Energy nuclear safety activities conducted in partnership with NASA under Memoranda of Understanding; (iii) the Department of Defense’s Range Safety activities; (iv) NASA’s general involvement in interagency and international dialogues regarding nuclear safety; (v) the NASA-administered Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board; (vi) NASA’s program and project governance activities and nuclear-specific Technical Discipline Team activities under the Office of the Chief Engineer; and others. It is the intent of this handbook to promote effective leveraging of these additional interrelated organizational activities, as appropriate.

Donald Helton↗

Towards Streamlining Auditing for Compliance With Requirements in Open-Source Software at NASA

Context: NASA requires all software to meet several requirements (NPR 7150.2) depending on software criticality. The instantiation of these requirements may vary per project; however, once decided upon, projects must undergo audits to evaluate compliance with these requirements. Aim: We propose that audit effort can be reduced when requirements are realized by leveraging commonly used open-source infrastructure for version control, issue tracking and continuous integration, and the generated records are analyzed using a repository mining software tool to quantify process compliance. Method: We perform a case study in the NASA-funded Copilot project, utilizing Kaiaulu, a repository mining software tool. We define four software compliance metrics based on the Copilot’s requirements, and analyze their impact on source code quality. Results: Our work demonstrates how it is possible to leverage existing open source tools and platforms to facilitate software certification and qualification, and to streamline the auditing process required even when stringent requirements must be enforced. Conclusion: Together, both project and tool can be utilized to visualize project compliance, and metrics can be defined to more easily identify process irregularities to minimize auditing efforts. Project Repository: github.com/Copilot-Language/copilot Tool Repository: github.com/sailuh/kaiaulu

code-quality↗

Planetary Protection is Not a One Size Fits All Missions Approach: Enabling the Planetary Protection Programmatic and Engineering Process

Missions have a wide range of variables that change their management and engineering structure (e.g., competed vs directed missions, multiple NASA centers, international partnerships, increased commercial collaborations, etc.). Why would an identical planetary protection approach and structure for each mission make sense in this evolving landscape? Missions do not fit in a one-size-fits-all approach, likewise their planetary protection process should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. During the significant update to NPR 8715.24 and NASA-STD-8719.27 planetary protection policies, the programmatic execution and engineering implementation processes were changed to provide clarification, streamlining, and expansion to include alternative approaches. From a programmatic perspective, these changes include the flexibility in timing and combination of gate products in addition to providing varying levels of technical depth commensurate and appropriate with the mission categorization. From a technical perspective, these changes include the ability to A) leverage either a performance-based and/or a prescriptive-based approach, B) identify applicable international consensus standards for verification, and C) propose alternative methods that adhere to sound scientific and engineering consensus. This presentation will directly highlight the culture shift in planetary protection, areas of flexibility available to the technical community for mission program and engineering execution, and feature some of the specific mission scenarios that have already leveraged such processes.

Nick Benardini↗

What You Need to Know about Planetary Protection Categorization for Your Mission

Planetary protection mission categorization helps to define the risk posture for requirements definition and implementation practices on space flight projects with planetary protection considerations. NASA has recently updated it’s planetary protection policy (NPR 8715.24), and with the update comes a major change in how the planetary protection categorization process is performed for NASA missions. Previously, projects would request the NASA Planetary Protection Officer (PPO) provide a categorization letter documenting the planetary protection category assigned to the proposed mission. Under the new policy the project manager (PM) proposes the planetary protection category for their mission. Depending on the level of the category, the PPO either concurs or recommends concurrence to the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) before forwarding to the Mission Directorate Associate Administrator (MDAA) for final approval prior to the system requirements review (SRR). But what topics must be considered for categorization? This presentation will provide key considerations for planetary protection mission categorization including the target solar system body to be explored, the trajectory to get to the target body, and the operations to be performed at the target body. Additional unique scenarios such as secondary and auxiliary payloads, encountering other solar system bodies on the way to the target body, and sample return missions will also be discussed to share lessons learned from missions that have been through the new categorization process.

Elaine Seasly↗

Robotic and Crewed Mars Missions Increasing the Demand for Planetary Protection Technology Needs

Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectivesdriven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for groundbased space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.

J. Nick Benardini↗

Robotic and Crewed Mars Missions Increasing the Demand for Planetary Protection Technology Needs

Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestrial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectives-driven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for ground-based space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.

J Nick Benardini↗

Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission

NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission was humanity’s first attempt to move a celestial body, demonstrating the capability to perform a kinetic impact on a planetary defense–relevant sized asteroid. DART was part of the international collaboration known as the Asteroid Impact & Deflection Assessment (AIDA), involving NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI), and scientists around the world. DART was a key step to demonstrating preparedness to respond to planetary defense scenarios, and it provides a crucial data point for likely outcomes. Near-Earth objects (NEOs) greater than 140 m in size are of particular interest to planetary defense because they have the potential to cause significant damage if they were to impact Earth, and also because they are difficult to detect, with less than 50% of the predicted population discovered as of 2022 (National Academies Press, 2022). With an appropriately sized spacecraft and enough warning (typically many years to decades), a kinetic impact can slightly alter the orbit of an asteroid in a way that, over time, prevents the asteroid from colliding with Earth in the future. DART’s target was Dimorphos, the smaller (~150-m-diameter) member of the binary asteroid system (65803) Didymos, which is a near-Earth, potentially hazardous, and well-characterized asteroid system. By simply observing changes to the system after impact and comparing them with a pre-impact reference, it was possible to use ground-based telescopes to observe the deflection in the orbit of Dimorphos after impact. Developed and operated by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), the mission entered formulation in 2015 after multiple years of concept development. The project was administered according to NPR 7120.5, with technical oversight and funding through the Planetary Missions Program Office (PMPO) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and overall support as a directed mission from NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO). The DART spacecraft hosted a singular payload, the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for Optical navigation (DRACO), and a deployable CubeSat contributed by ASI named the Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube). On 11 September 2022, DART deployed LICIACube, which subsequently followed the DART spacecraft at a safe distance and observed the immediate aftermath of the DART impact. DART was designed to autonomously detect, navigate to, and impact Dimorphos. This autonomous design was chosen to maximize the probability of impact, since commanding from the ground could result in course corrections arriving too late. On the day of impact, 26 September 2022, the spacecraft’s autonomous systems successfully detected and locked on to Dimorphos, impacting its surface within 2 m of the center of the illuminated figure (Jensenius et al., 2023). No human intervention was required for a successful impact, demonstrating that humanity possesses the technology to perform a kinetic impact. Within 2 weeks of impact, it was clear that the orbit of Dimorphos had been significantly altered. On 11 October 2022, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced that the new orbital period of Dimorphos was shortened by approximately 32 ± 2 min, from 11 h and 55 min before impact to 11 h and 23 min after impact. With additional observations over the following months, the accuracy of this measurement improved to a –33.24 min ± 1.4 s orbital period change (Naidu et al., 2023; Scheirich et al., 2023), and Beta (β), the momentum transfer enhancement parameter, was reported to be 3.6 (Cheng et al., 2023). Subsequent studies examined the details of DART’s impact site, modeled the impact event, investigated the ejecta produced, and analyzed the dynamics of the Didymos system. These combined results clearly demonstrate that the project met all Level 1 mission requirements.

asteroid↗

Flow, Noise and Thrust of Supersonic Plug Nozzles

A model-scale experimental study is conducted with a plug nozzle exploring the performance of various plug geometries for supersonic aircraft concepts. All data are acquired with a given outer nozzle that is convergent and has an exit diameter of 2 inches. The shape of the centrally placed plug is varied from conic with various half-angles (lengths), to method of characteristics (MoC) designs, as well as truncated and porous geometries. Noise and schlieren flow visualization data, presented in an earlier paper, are briefly reviewed first. The focus in this paper is on the thrust performance. A newly constructed thrust stand is used to acquire data covering a nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) range from transonic (‘landing and takeoff’, LTO) to supersonic (‘cruise’) conditions. Back-to-back measurements allowed assessment of relative performance. A plug with its ‘crown’ located somewhat inside the nozzle, rather than near the exit, is found to perform better. A longer 10° plug performs better than a shorter 22° plug. A porous plug, that significantly suppresses broadband shock associated noise, is found to incur a modest thrust loss that might be an acceptable tradeoff near LTO conditions. A companion numerical simulation for some of the plug geometries yields data trends bearing reasonable agreement with the experimental results.

jets↗