Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “General Repair”

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.

156 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MicroRNA Based Countermeasure Rescue Health Risks Associated with Space Radiation and Microgravity

From our earlier work, we demonstrated a circulating microRNA (miRNA) signature that is present and involved with the general increased health risks during spaceflight. From this work we demonstrated that this miRNA signature impacted the overall biology and health with both the microgravity and space radiation components of the space environment. We showed that this miRNA signature can be an optimal biomarker for health risk and also has potential to be utilized as a countermeasure to mitigate the damage caused by the space environment by utilizing a human 3D microvascular tissue model. By applying a novel self-delivery system to target 3 miRNAs (i.e. antagomirs) from our spaceflight miRNA signature impacting cardiovascular health risks, we were able to completely mitigate damage caused by exposure to simulated Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) irradiation. Here we further expand on the countermeasure experiments to uncover the specific novel biology involved with this countermeasure and in vivo experiments that demonstrates that these antagomirs rescue damage caused to certain organs due to both microgravity and space radiation. Specifically, the miRNAs rescued damage to the heart and immune suppression that occurred in addition to other key biology. In addition, we have also observed with the 3D microvascular tissue model improved DNA double strand break repair machinery which can also contribute to improved recovery and protection against damage caused by space radiation. This work expands on our previous work and further uncovers how a potential minimally invasive countermeasure can be used to mitigate space environment effects.

Afshin Beheshti↗
NASA NTRS2012

Integrated Simulation Design Challenges to Support TPS Repair Operations

During the Orbiter Repair Maneuver (ORM) operations planned for Return to Flight (RTF), the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) must grapple the International Space Station (ISS), undock the Orbiter, maneuver it through a long duration trajectory, and orient it to an EVA crewman poised at the end of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) to facilitate the repair of the Thermal Protection System (TPS). Once repair has been completed and confirmed, then the SRMS proceeds back through the trajectory to dock the Orbiter to the Orbiter Docking System. In order to support analysis of the complex dynamic interactions of the integrated system formed by the Orbiter, ISS, SRMS, and SSMS during the ORM, simulation tools used for previous ‘nominal’ mission support required substantial enhancements. These upgrades were necessary to provide analysts with the capabilities needed to study integrated system performance. Prevalent throughout this ORM operation is a dynamically varying topology. In other words, the ORM starts with the SRMS grappled to the mated Shuttle/ISS stack (closed loop topology), moves to an open loop chain topology consisting of the Shuttle, SRMS, and ISS, and then, at the repair configuration, extends the chain topology to one consisting of the Shuttle, SMS, ISS, and SSRMS/EVA crewman. The resulting long dynamic chain of vehicles and manipulators may exhibit significant motion between the Shuttle worksite and the EVA crewman due to the system flexibility throughout the topology (particularly within the SRMS/SSRMS joints and links). Since the attachment points of both manipulators span the flexible structure of the ISS, simulation analysis may also need to take that into consideration. Moreover, due to the lengthy time duration associated with the maneuver and repair, orbital effects become a factor and require the ISS vehicle control system to maintain active attitude control. Several facets of the ORM operation make the associated analytical efforts different from previous mission support, including: (1) the magnitude of the SRMS handled payload (Le., Orbiter class), (2) the orbital effects induced on the integrated system consisting of the large Shuttle and ISS masses connected by a light flexible SRMS, (3) long duration environmental consequences due to the lengthy operational times associated with the maneuver and repair of the TPS, (4) active attitude control (as opposed to free drift) interacting with the SRMS and SSRMS manipulators (also due to the length of the maneuver and repair), (5) relative dynamics between the EVA crewman and thc worksite influenced by the extended flexible topology. In order to meet these analysis challenges, an ORM simulation architecture was developed leveraging upon numerous pre-existing simulation elements to analyze the various subsystems individually. For example, core manipulator subsystem simulations for both the SRMS and SSRMS were originally combined to provide the dual-arm dynamics topology simulation (in the absence of orbital dynamics and vehicle control). This capability was later merged with the simulation used to analyze SRMS loading with a heavy payload in the orbital environment with an active payload control system (in this case, the ISS Attitude Control System (ACS)), configured for the ORM. The resulting worksite dynamics simulation, based off of the modified ORM simulation, provided the extended topological chain of vehicles and manipulators, while taking into account the orbital effects of both the Shuttle and ISS (as well as its ACS). Verification and validation (V&V) of these integrated simulations became a challenge in itself. A systematic approach needed to be developed such that integration simulation results could be tested against previous constituent simulations upon which these simulations were built. General V&V categories included: (1) core orbital state propagation, (2), stand-alone SRMS, (3) stand-alone SSRMS, (4) stand-alone ISS ACS, (5) integrated Shuttle, SRMS, ISS (with active ACS) in the orbital environment, and (5) dual-arm SRMS/SSRMS dynamics topology. Integrated simulation V&V run suites were created and correlated to verification runs from subsystem simulations, in order to establish the validity of the results. This paper discusses the simulation design challenges encountered while developing simulation capabilities to mirror the ORM operations. The paper also describes the incremental build approach that was utilized, starting with the subsystem simulation elements and integration into increasing more complex simulations until the resulting ORM worksite dynamics simulation had been assembled. Furthermore, the paper presents an overall integrated simulation V&V methodology based upon a subsystem level testing, integrated comparisons, and phased checkout.

Thermal Protection System↗
NASA NTRS2001

Different mechanisms of radiation-induced loss of heterozygosity in two human lymphoid cell lines from a single donor

Allelic loss is an important mutational mechanism in human carcinogenesis. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at an autosomal locus is one outcome of the repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and can occur by deletion or by mitotic recombination. We report that mitotic recombination between homologous chromosomes occurred in human lymphoid cells exposed to densely ionizing radiation. We used cells derived from the same donor that express either normal TP53 (TK6 cells) or homozygous mutant TP53 (WTK1 cells) to assess the influence of TP53 on radiation-induced mutagenesis. Expression of mutant TP53 (Met 237 Ile) was associated with a small increase in mutation frequencies at the hemizygous HPRT (hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase) locus, but the mutation spectra were unaffected at this locus. In contrast, WTK1 cells (mutant TP53) were 30-fold more susceptible than TK6 cells (wild-type TP53) to radiation-induced mutagenesis at the TK1 (thymidine kinase) locus. Gene dosage analysis combined with microsatellite marker analysis showed that the increase in TK1 mutagenesis in WTK1 cells could be attributed, in part, to mitotic recombination. The microsatellite marker analysis over a 64-cM region on chromosome 17q indicated that the recombinational events could initiate at different positions between the TK1 locus and the centromere. Virtually all of the recombinational LOH events extended beyond the TK1 locus to the most telomeric marker. In general, longer LOH tracts were observed in mutants from WTK1 cells than in mutants from TK6 cells. Taken together, the results demonstrate that the incidence of radi-ation-induced mutations is dependent on the genetic background of the cell at risk, on the locus examined, and on the mechanisms for mutation available at the locus of interest.

NASA Discipline Radiation Health↗
NASA NTRS2007

Investigation of MMOD Impact on STS-115 Shuttle Payload Bay Door Radiator

The Orbiter radiator system consists of eight individual 4.6 m x 3.2 m panels located with four on each payload bay door. Forward panels #1 and #2 are 2.3 cm thick while the aft panels #3 and #4 have a smaller overall thickness of 1.3 cm. The honeycomb radiator panels consist of 0.028 cm thick Aluminum 2024-T81 facesheets and Al5056-H39 cores. The face-sheets are topped with 0.005 in. (0.127 mm) silver-Teflon tape. The radiators are located on the inside of the shuttle payload bay doors, which are closed during ascent and reentry, limiting damage to the on-orbit portion of the mission. Post-flight inspections at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) following the STS-115 mission revealed a large micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD) impact near the hinge line on the #4 starboard payload bay door radiator panel. The features of this impact make it the largest ever recorded on an orbiter payload bay door radiator. The general location of the damage site and the adjacent radiator panels can be seen in Figure 2. Initial measurements of the defect indicated that the hole in the facesheet was 0.108 in. (2.74 mm) in diameter. Figure 3 shows an image of the front side damage. Subsequent observations revealed exit damage on the rear facesheet. Impact damage features on the rear facesheet included a 0.03 in. diameter hole (0.76 mm), a approx.0.05 in. tall bulge (approx.1.3 mm), and a larger approx.0.2 in. tall bulge (approx.5.1 mm) that exhibited a crack over 0.27 in. (6.8 mm) long. A large approx.1 in. (25 mm) diameter region of the honeycomb core was also damaged. Refer to Figure 4 for an image of the backside damage to the panel. No damage was found on thermal blankets or payload bay door structure under the radiator panel. Figure 5 shows the front facesheet with the thermal tape removed. Ultrasound examination indicated a maximum facesheet debond extent of approximately 1 in. (25 mm) from the entry hole. X-ray examinations revealed damage to an estimated 31 honeycomb cells with an extent of 0.85 in. x 1.1 in. (21.6 x 27.9 mm). Pieces of the radiator at and surrounding the impact site were recovered during the repair procedures at KSC. They included the thermal tape, front facesheet, honeycomb core, and rear facesheet. These articles were examined at JSC using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with an energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer (EDS). Figure 6 shows SEM images of the entry hole in the facesheet. The asymmetric height of the lip may be attributed to projectile shape and impact angle. Numerous instances of a glass-fiber organic matrix composite were observed in the facesheet tape sample. The fibers were approximately 10 micrometers in diameter and variable lengths. EDS analysis indicated a composition of Mg, Ca, Al, Si, and O. Figures 7 and 8 present images of the fiber bundles, which were believed to be circuit board material based on similarity in fiber diameter, orientation, consistency, and composition. A test program was initiated in an attempt to simulate the observed damage to the radiator facesheet and honeycomb. Twelve test shots were performed using projectiles cut from a 1.6 mm thick fiberglass circuit board substrate panel. Results from test HITF07017, shown in figures 9 and 10, correlates with the observed impact features reasonably well. The test was performed at 4.14 km/sec with an impact angle of 45 degrees using a cylindrical projectile with a diameter and length of 1.25 mm. The fiberglass circuit board material had a density of 1.65 g/cu cm, giving a projectile mass of 2.53 mg. An analysis was performed using the Bumper code to estimate the probability of impact to the shuttle from a 1.25 mm diameter particle. Table 1 shows a 1.6% chance (impact odds = 1 in 62) of a 1.25 mm or larger MMOD impact on the radiators of the vehicle during a typical ISS mission. There is a 0.4% chance (impact odds = 1 in 260) that a 1.25 mm or larger MMOD particle would impact the RCC wing leading edge and nose cap during a typical miion. Figure 11 illustrates the vulnerable areas of the wing leading edge reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC), an area of the vehicle that is very sensitive to impact damage. The highlighted red, orange, yellow, and light green areas would be expected to experience critical damage if impacted by an OD particle such as the one that hit the RH4 radiator panel on STS-115.

Hyde, J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

EVA Swab Tool to Support Planetary Protection and Astrobiology Evaluations

When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed systems meet planetary protection requirements-and to protect our science from human contamination-we'll need to assess whether microorganisms may be leaking or venting from our spacecraft. Microbial sample collection outside of a pressurized spacecraft is complicated by temperature extremes, low pressures that preclude the use of laboratory standard (wetted) swabs, and operation either in bulky spacesuits or with robotic assistance. Engineers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently developed a swab kit for use in collecting microbial samples from the external surfaces of crewed spacecraft, including spacesuits. The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Swab Kit consists of a single swab tool handle and an eight-canister sample caddy. The design team minimized development cost by re-purposing a heritage Space Shuttle tile repair handle that was designed to quickly snap into different tool attachments by engaging a mating device in each attachment. This allowed the tool handle to snap onto a fresh swab attachment much like popular shaving razor handles can snap onto a disposable blade cartridge. To disengage the handle from a swab, the user performs two independent functions, which can be done with a single hand. This dual operation mitigates the risk that a swab will be inadvertently released and lost in microgravity. Each swab attachment is fitted with commercially available foam swab tips, vendor-certified to be sterile for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). A microbial filter installed in the bottom of each sample container allows the container to outgas and repressurize without introducing microbial contaminants to internal void spaces. Extensive ground testing, post-test handling, and sample analysis confirmed the design is able to maintain sterile conditions as the canister moves between various pressure environments. To further minimize cost, the design team acquired extensive ground test experience in a relevant flight environment by piggy-backing onto suited crew training runs. These training runs allowed the project to validate tool interfaces with pressurized EVA gloves and collect user feedback on the tool design and function, as well as characterize baseline microbial data for different types of spacesuits. In general, test subjects found the EVA Swab Kit relatively straightforward to operate, but identified a number of design improvements that will be incorporated into the final design. Although originally intended to help characterize human forward contaminants, this tool has other potential applications, such as for collecting and preserving space-exposed materials to support astrobiology experiments.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

EVA Swab Tool to Support Planetary Protection and Astrobiology Evaluations

When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed systems meet planetary protection requirements-and to protect our science from human contamination-we'll need to assess whether microorganisms may be leaking or venting from our spacecraft. Microbial sample collection outside of a pressurized spacecraft is complicated by temperature extremes, low pressures that preclude the use of laboratory standard (wetted) swabs, and operation either in bulky spacesuits or with robotic assistance. A team at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently developed a swab kit for use in collecting microbial samples from the external surfaces of crewed spacecraft, including spacesuits. The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Swab Kit consists of a single swab tool handle and an eight-canister sample caddy. The design team minimized development cost by re-purposing a heritage Space Shuttle tile repair handle that was designed to quickly snap into different tool attachments by engaging a mating device in each end effector. This allowed the tool handle to snap onto a fresh swab end effector much like popular shaving razor handles can snap onto a disposable blade cartridge. To disengage the handle from a swab, the user performs two independent functions, which can be done with a single hand. This dual operation mitigates the risk that a swab will be inadvertently released and lost in microgravity. Each swab end effector is fitted with commercially available foam swab tips, vendor-certified to be sterile for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). A microbial filter installed in the bottom of each sample container allows the container to outgas and re-pressurize without introducing microbial contaminants to internal void spaces. Extensive ground testing, post-test handling, and sample analysis confirmed the design is able to maintain sterile conditions as the canister moves between various pressure environments. To further minimize cost, the design team acquired extensive ground test experience in a relevant flight environment by piggy-backing onto suited crew training runs. These training runs allowed the project to validate tool interfaces with pressurized EVA gloves and collect user feedback on the tool design and function, as well as characterize baseline microbial data for different types of spacesuits. In general, test subjects found the EVA Swab Kit relatively straightforward to operate, but identified a number of design improvements that will be incorporated into the final design. Although originally intended to help characterize human forward contaminants, this tool has other potential applications, such as for collecting and preserving space-exposed materials to support astrobiology experiments.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

EVA Swab Tool to Support Planetary Protection and Astrobiology Evaluations

When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed systems meet planetary protection requirements?and to protect our science from human contamination?we'll need to assess whether microorganisms may be leaking or venting from our spacecraft. Microbial sample collection outside of a pressurized spacecraft is complicated by temperature extremes, low pressures that preclude the use of laboratory standard (wetted) swabs, and operation either in bulky spacesuits or with robotic assistance. A team at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently developed a swab kit for use in collecting microbial samples from the external surfaces of crewed spacecraft, including spacesuits. The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Swab Kit consists of a single swab tool handle and an eight-canister sample caddy. The design team minimized development cost by re-purposing a heritage Space Shuttle tile repair handle that was designed to quickly snap into different tool attachments by engaging a mating device in each end effector. This allowed the tool handle to snap onto a fresh swab end effector much like popular shaving razor handles can snap onto a disposable blade cartridge. To disengage the handle from a swab, the user performs two independent functions, which can be done with a single hand. This dual operation mitigates the risk that a swab will be inadvertently released and lost in microgravity. Each swab end effector is fitted with commercially available foam swab tips, vendor-certified to be sterile for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). A microbial filter installed in the bottom of each sample container allows the container to outgas and re-pressurize without introducing microbial contaminants to internal void spaces. Extensive ground testing, post-test handling, and sample analysis confirmed the design is able to maintain sterile conditions as the canister moves between various pressure environments. To further minimize cost, the design team acquired extensive ground test experience in a relevant flight environment by piggy-backing onto suited crew training runs. These training runs allowed the project to validate tool interfaces with pressurized EVA gloves and collect user feedback on the tool design and function, as well as characterize baseline microbial data for different types of spacesuits. In general, test subjects found the EVA Swab Kit relatively straightforward to operate, but identified a number of design improvements that will be incorporated into the final design. Although originally intended to help characterize human forward contaminants, this tool has other potential applications, such as for collecting and preserving space-exposed materials to support astrobiology experiments.

planetary protection↗
NASA NTRS1994

Scientific and technical photography at NASA Langley Research Center

As part of my assignment connected with the Scientific and Technical Photography & Lab (STPL) at the NASA Langley Research Center I conducted a series of interviews and observed the day to day operations of the STPL with the ultimate objective of becoming exposed first hand to a scientific and technical photo/imaging department for which my school prepares its graduates. I was also asked to share my observations with the staff in order that these comments and observations might assist the STPL to better serve its customers. Meetings with several individuals responsible for various wind tunnels and with a group that provides photo-optical instrumentation services at the Center gave me an overview of the services provided by the Lab and possible areas for development. In summary form these are some of the observations that resulted from the interviews and daily contact with the STPL facility. (1) The STPL is perceived as a valuable and almost indispensable service group within the organization. This comment was invariably made by everyone. Everyone also seemed to support the idea that the STPL continue to provide its current level of service and quality. (2) The STPL generally is not perceived to be a highly technically oriented group but rather as a provider of high quality photographic illustration and documentation services. In spite of the importance and high marks assigned to the STPL there are several observations that merit consideration and evaluation for possible inclusion into the STPL's scope of expertise and future operating practices. (1) While the care and concern for artistic rendition of subjects is seen as laudable and sometimes valuable, the time that this often requires is seen as interfering with keeping the tunnels operating at maximum productivity. Tunnel managers would like to shorten down-time due to photography, have services available during evening hours and on short notice. It may be of interest to the STPL that tunnel managers are incorporating ever greater imaging capabilities in their facilities. To some extent this could mean a reduced demand for traditional photographic services. (2) The photographic archive is seen as a Center resource. Archiving of images, as well as data, is a matter of concern to the investigators. The early holdings of the Photographic Archives are quickly deteriorating. The relative inaccessibility of the material held in the archives is problematic. (3) In certain cases delivery or preparation of digital image files instead of, or along with, hardcopy is already being perceived by the STPL's customers as desirable. The STPL should make this option available, and the fact that it has, or will have this capability widely known. (4) The STPL needs to continue to provide expert advice and technical imaging support in terms of application information to users of traditional photographic and new electronic imaging systems. Cooperative demo projects might be undertaken to maintain or improve the capabilities of the Lab. (5) STPL personnel do not yet have significant electronic imaging or electronic communication skills and improvements in this is an area could potentially have a positive impact on the Center. (6) High speed photographic or imaging services are often mentioned by the STPL as being of primary importance to their mission but the lab supports very few projects calling for high speed imaging services. Much high speed equipment is in poor state of repair. It is interesting to note that when the operation of lasers, digital imaging or quantitative techniques are requested these are directed to another NASA department. Could joint activities be initiated to solve problems? (7). The STPL could acquire more technical assignments if examples of the areas where they posses expertise would be circulated around the center. The fact that the STPL owns high speed video capability could be 'advertised' among its customer base if there truly was an interest in building up a customer base in this area. The STPL could participate in events like TOPS as an exhibitor, as well as a documenter, of the event.

Davidhazy, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2023

Launch Complex 34, SWMU CCO542022 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ), Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and Hot Spot (HS) 6 Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 13 operation of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), the results of performance monitoring direct-push technology (DPT) sampling and monitoring well sampling conducted in the DSZ, results of the biennial site-wide LTM event, and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. This site has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. For the site-wide biennial LTM event, a total of 55 monitoring wells were sampled for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in February 2023 and one well was sampled for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in December 2022. One well planned for VOC sampling was found to be destroyed and could not be sampled (CW0002). The LTM wells are screened in two lithologic zones: Layer 1 (0 to 25 feet below land surface [bls]) and Layer 2 (25 to 30 ft bls), and are located in the outlying areas of LC34 to monitor groundwater conditions within the Low-Concentration Plume (LCP), defined as concentrations exceeding Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs), and the High-Concentration Plume (HCP), defined as concentrations exceeding Natural Attenuation Default Concentrations (NADCs). Results from the biennial sampling event indicated overall plume stability and delineation for the plume, which extends over 300 acres. The operational period for Year 13 of the HCS was from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. Operational runtime for the system was 90 percent during Year 13, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2023, a total of 313,673,241 cumulative gallons of groundwater containing 88,337 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the HCS. Influent concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 μg/L (January 2010) to 12,000 μg/L (March 2023). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in December 2022 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events between 2017 and 2021. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 feet bls, at 5-foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 μg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations and at depths ranging from 8 to 98 feet bls. In addition to DPT sampling, groundwater samples were collected from deep monitoring wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) in December 2022 to verify vertical delineation. Layer 7/8 monitoring well results were non-detect in December 2022, with exception of three wells (IW0162, IW043D2, and IW044D2), where TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), and/or vinyl chloride (VC) were detected above GCTLs. These wells are screened 105 to 115 feet bls, which is below the existing recovery well capture zone. TCE was first detected in IW0162 in December 2021 and has since been sampled at least monthly to monitor TCE concentrations. The maximum TCE concentration during this operational period was 15,000 μg/L at IW0162 in March 2023. Because of the increased TCE concentrations in this well, a new recovery well (RW21D), screened 86 to 106 feet bls, was installed in January 2023 and incorporated into existing HCS operations. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells, and expanded in 2019 with an additional 140 AS wells. Quarterly performance monitoring was reduced to semi-annual in 2020. The HS 6 AS system remained operational during the reporting period covered under this report. The results of the HS 6 system operation and semi-annual performance monitoring are summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2022 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cDCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) are generally decreasing and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM is meeting objectives. A Phase Two Expansion of the HS 6 AS IM was recently completed. As of the date of this report, the expansion became operational in August 2023 and the first quarter of monitoring was conducted in November 2023. Details of the construction, start-up, and performance monitoring will be included in a future Annual PMR. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 13 operation of the HC IM, operation of the HS 6 AS IM, and biennial site-wide sampling were performed in accordance with recommendations included in the previous 2021 LC34 (Year 12) annual report. Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives. Results from the site-wide biennial LTM program also show that the overall network of monitoring wells is adequate to continue monitoring plume-wide conditions.

Complex 34↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2022

Launch Complex 34, SWMU Cc054 2021 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ) and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 12 operation of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), the results of performance monitoring direct-push technology (DPT) sampling and monitoring well sampling conducted in the DSZ, and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. Site-wide biennial LTM sampling was not conducted during this reporting period and is scheduled to be conducted in December 2022. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the DSZ and deep dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to re-characterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 12 of the HCS was from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 12, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 285,712,801 gallons of groundwater containing 84,933 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the HCS. Influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 12,000 µg/L (March 2022). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in December 2021 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 ft bls, at 5 foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations at depths ranging from 8 to 98 ft bls. An overall increasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which may be due to several recovery wells that were turned off during the AS Pilot Study in the DSZ that operated from July 2021 to February 2022 (documented separately from this report). The maximum TCE concentration in 2021 was 15,400,000 µg/L in the 58 ft bls depth interval at DPT597 (previous maximum result in 2020 was 1,690,000 at 48 ft bls at DPT596). During the 2021 DPT event, the overall majority of TCE contamination was identified in the 58 ft bls interval (below Layer 4), where in the previous year the majority of mass was observed in Layer 4. This trend appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, monitoring well samples were collected from deep wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) to verify vertical delineation. All monitoring well results were non-detect or below cleanup levels, with exception of one well (IW0162, screened 105 to 115 ft bls, which is below the existing recovery well capture zone) where TCE was identified above cleanup target levels. The HS 6 AS system remained operational during the reporting period covered under this report. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells, and expanded in 2019 with an additional 140 AS wells. Quarterly performance monitoring was reduced to semi-annual prior to this operational period. The results of the HS 6 system operation and semi-annual performance monitoring are summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2021 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2- dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) are generally decreasing and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM is meeting objectives. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 12 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the 2020 LC34 (Year 11) Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for DNAPL Source Zone, Site Wide LongTerm Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparging System PMR (NASA, 2021c). Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

trichloroethene↗
NASA NTRS2024

Launch Complex 34, SWMU CC054 2023 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring and Phase Two Expansion Construction Completion Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ), Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 14 operations and performance monitoring of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), details associated with construction and implementation of the HS 6 AS system expansion (Phase Two), and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the shallow and deep DSZ and surrounding dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to recharacterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS and install additional recovery wells in Layer 7 to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 14 of the HCS was from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 14, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2024, a total of 344,849,634 cumulative gallons of groundwater containing 94,656 pounds of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) have been removed by the HCS. During the reporting period covered under this report, the HCS recovered 31,176,393 gallons and approximately 6,319 pounds of CVOC mass. Total combined influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 25,000 µg/L (March 2024). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in January 2024 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events between 2017 and 2022. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 feet below land surface (bls), at 5-foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations and at depths ranging from 28 to 98 feet bls. An overall decreasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which is a reduction from the previous event (December 2022) and the peak event in December 2021, where TCE percentages appeared to increase in all depth zones because several recovery wells were turned off during the AS pilot study in the DSZ. The maximum TCE concentration in January 2024 was 1,600,000 µg/L in the 53 feet bls depth interval at DPT594 (previous maximum result in 2022 was 1,800,000 µg/L in the 48 feet bls depth interval at DPT599). This maximum concentration in the 53 feet bls depth interval is in the deep capture zone. During the January 2024 DPT event, the largest portion of TCE mass was observed in the 48 feet bls interval above/within Layer 4. This trend remains consistent with previous years and appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, annual groundwater samples were collected from 11 deep monitoring wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) in December 2023 to verify vertical and horizontal delineation. Three of the wells were also sampled biweekly to evaluate operations of recovery well RW21D (screened 86 to 106 feet bls), which was installed in January 2023. Of the Layer 7/8 monitoring sampled only annually, results were non-detect or less than groundwater cleanup target levels GCTLs in December 2023, with the exception of one well, IW45D2, which had a cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), detection greater than the GCTL. Of the three wells sampled biweekly during the operational period, the well located closest to Layer 7 recovery well RW21D (IW44D2, screened 105 to 115 feet bls) had concentrations of TCE, cDCE and vinyl chloride (VC) greater than GCTLs throughout the operational period, but displayed a decreasing trend since the peak concentrations in September 2023. The maximum TCE concentration during this operational period was 190,000 µg/L at IW44D2 in September 2023, but reduced to 700 µg/L in March 2024, indicating the HCS is still effectively removing mass from the source area. Expansion of the HCS and addition of new recovery wells is ongoing and will continue to be evaluated as the groundwater recovery scheme is optimized. Details of the expansion and optimization will be provided in a future PMR. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells and expanded in 2019 with another 140 AS wells. An additional expansion of the HS 6 AS IM was completed during the reporting period covered under this report and details of the construction implementation and startup of the expansion are detailed in Section III of this report. The new expansion, referred to as Phase Two, was implemented between August 17, 2022 and August 28, 2023, and included the installation of 190 air sparge wells to treat an additional 11.2 acres. The original configuration (referred to as Phase One) operated until Phase Two came online, then all but 52 AS wells were turned off so the components could be moved and utilized in the Phase Two area. The 52 AS wells that remain on are in a barrier configuration preventing contaminated groundwater from impacting the treated area. The HS 6 AS system (both Phase One and Two) operated normally during the reporting period covered under this report. Semi-annual performance monitoring of the Phase One configuration was conducted in April and November 2023, consistent with previous years. For the Phase Two configuration, 21 new monitoring wells were installed and sampled quarterly, with a baseline event in July 2023, and quarterly events in November 2023 and February 2024 summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2023 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cDCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and VC) have decreased to less than GCTLs in nearly all wells and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM continues to meet objectives. The baseline and quarterly sampling for the Phase Two configuration indicate generally decreasing concentrations in wells within and around the perimeter of the treatment area. At least two more quarters of monitoring will be conducted and once those results are evaluated a reduced the sampling frequency may be considered. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 14 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with recommendations included in the previous 2022 LC34 (Year 13) PMR. Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

groundwater remediation↗