Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “developable”

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 1,711 records · Page 95

Developing fault models for space mission software

Over the past several years, we have focused on developing fault models for space mission software. In general, these models use measurable attributes of a software system and its development process to estimate the number of faults inserted into the system during its development; their outputs can be used to better estimate the resources to be allocated to fault identification and removal for all system components.

fault models software development software archite↗

Using Modified Fagan Inspections to Control Rapid System Development

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has been developing new approaches to software and system development to shorten life cycle time and reduce total life-cycle cost, while maintaining product quality. One such approach has been taken by the Just-In-Time (JIT) Materiel Acquisition System Development Project.

JIT Implementing Radio Frequency (RF) Bar Code dev↗

A Systems Engineering Approach to Architecture Development

Architecture development is conducted prior to system concept design when there is a need to determine the best-value mix of systems that works collectively in specific scenarios and time frames to accomplish a set of mission area objectives. While multiple architecture frameworks exist, they often require use of unique taxonomies and data structures. In contrast, this presentation characterizes architecture development using terminology widely understood within the systems engineering community. Using a notional civil space architecture example, it employs a multi-tier framework to describe the enterprise level architecture and illustrates how results of lower tier, mission area architectures integrate into the enterprise architecture. It also presents practices for conducting effective mission area architecture studies, including establishing the trade space, developing functions and metrics, evaluating the ability of potential design solutions to meet the required functions, and expediting study execution through the use of iterative design cycles.

Architecture Development↗

A Systems Engineering Approach to Architecture Development

Architecture development is often conducted prior to system concept design when there is a need to determine the best-value mix of systems that works collectively in specific scenarios and time frames to accomplish a set of mission area objectives. While multiple architecture frameworks exist, they often require use of unique taxonomies and data structures. In contrast, this paper characterizes architecture development using terminology widely understood within the systems engineering community. Using a notional civil space architecture example, it employs a multi-tier framework to describe the enterprise level architecture and illustrates how results of lower tier, mission area architectures integrate into the enterprise architecture. It also presents practices for conducting effective mission area architecture studies, including establishing the trade space, developing functions and metrics, evaluating the ability of potential design solutions to meet the required functions, and expediting study execution through the use of iterative design cycles.

Multi-tier Framework↗

A Systems Engineering Approach to Architecture Development

Architecture development is often conducted prior to system concept design when there is a need to determine the best-value mix of systems that works collectively in specific scenarios and time frames to accomplish a set of mission area objectives. While multiple architecture frameworks exist, they often require use of unique taxonomies and data structures. In contrast, this paper characterizes architecture development using terminology widely understood within the systems engineering community. Using a notional civil space architecture example, it employs a multi-tier framework to describe the enterprise level architecture and illustrates how results of lower tier, mission area architectures integrate into the enterprise architecture. It also presents practices for conducting effective mission area architecture studies, including establishing the trade space, developing functions and metrics, evaluating the ability of potential design solutions to meet the required functions, and expediting study execution through the use of iterative design cycles

Architecture Development↗

Scenario Development Process at the Vertical Motion Simulator

There has been a significant effort within the simulation community to standardize many aspects of flight simulation. More recently, an effort has begun to develop a formal scenario definition language for aviation. A working group within the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technical Committee has been created to develop a standard aviation scenario definition language, though much of the initial effort has been tailored to training simulators. Research and development (R&D) simulators, like the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), and training simulators have different missions and thus have different scenario requirements. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the unique tasks and scenario elements used at the VMS so they may be captured by scenario standardization efforts. The VMS most often performs handling qualities studies and transfer of training studies. Three representative handling qualities simulation studies and two transfer of training simulation studies are described in this paper. Unique scenario elements discussed in this paper included special out-the-window (OTW) targets and environmental conditions, motion system parameters, active inceptor parameters, and configurable vehicle math model parameters.

Vertical Motion Simulator↗

Conducting Feasibility Studies in a Virtual World: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices from the NASA DEVELOP Program

In response to new workplace realities, the NASA DEVELOP National Program pivoted from co-locating students, emerging professionals, and science advisors to bringing together virtual teams from across the United States. In its spring 2020 term, rapidly evolving circumstances required an ad-hoc roll-out of a virtual approach to complete the spring projects. Based on the experience from the spring term and a few weeks of planning, DEVELOP then conducted a fully virtual summer term with features such as 1) online collaboration tools, 2) virtual machines for analysis, and 3) streamed training offerings, including DEVELOP’s first ever program-wide Software Carpentry workshop. This full term of bringing together remote actors to select, build, and manage teams brought many challenges. Summer feedback has influenced planning for the fall 2020 term and process improvement is ongoing. This presentation will highlight lessons learned throughout this period of rapid change. Feedback from spring and summer terms and the Software Carpentry workshop will be summarized. Beyond participant impacts, there will also be discussion of effects on project results and partner experience. Final takeaways will focus on best practices that have been distilled for virtually-conducted feasibility studies.

NASA DEVELOP↗

Tempe Urban Development II: Establishing an Urban Heat Exposure Severity Score for Infrastructure Prioritization in Tempe, Arizona, Using NASA Earth Observations and LiDAR

Located in the northern Sonoran Desert, Tempe, Arizona, features a semi-arid climate with summer daily maximum temperatures regularly exceeding 37.8° C (100.0° F). The area has experienced an increase in surface and air temperatures due to a steep expansion of impervious surfaces and rapid urban development. Urban heat is an increasingly pressing concern for Tempe with hundreds of heat-related deaths and thousands of heat-related hospitalizations over the past 15 years in Maricopa County. Furthermore, urban heat impacts residents’ quality of life and the economic vitality of the city. Recognizing the impacts of extreme urban heat, the City of Tempe collaborated with the Healthy Urban Environments initiative and the Fall 2020 Tempe Urban Development II NASA DEVELOP team to utilize NASA Earth observations to investigate the drivers of highest heat throughout the city. Data from Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI), and Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), American Community Survey, and LiDAR data were used to identify areas experiencing the worst heat effects that could be targeted for heat mitigation and adaptation. These areas included the Escalante neighborhood, Alegre Community, University Heights, and around Dwight Park. Additionally, according to our shading analysis, the Gilliland and Escalante neighborhood walksheds do not meet the "good" shading threshold set at 30% by the Maricopa Association of Government.

DEVELOP Project Summary↗

Tempe Urban Development II: Establishing an Urban Heat Exposure Severity Score for Infrastructure Prioritization in Tempe, Arizona, Using NASA Earth Observations and LiDAR

Located in the northern Sonoran Desert, Tempe, Arizona, features a semi-arid climate with summer daily maximum temperatures regularly exceeding 37.8° C (100.0° F). The area has experienced an increase in surface and air temperatures due to a steep expansion of impervious surfaces and rapid urban development. Urban heat is an increasingly pressing concern for Tempe with hundreds of heat-related deaths and thousands of heat-related hospitalizations over the past 15 years in Maricopa County. Furthermore, urban heat impacts residents’ quality of life and the economic vitality of the city. Recognizing the impacts of extreme urban heat, the City of Tempe collaborated with the Healthy Urban Environments initiative and the Fall 2020 Tempe Urban Development II NASA DEVELOP team to utilize NASA Earth observations to investigate the drivers of heat exposure throughout the city. Data from Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI), and Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), American Community Survey, and LiDAR data were used to identify areas experiencing the worst heat effects that could be targeted for heat mitigation and adaptation. These areas included the Escalante neighborhood, Alegre Community, University Heights, and around Dwight Park. Additionally, according to our shading analysis, the Gilliland and Escalante neighborhood walksheds do not meet the "good" shading threshold set at 30% by the Maricopa Association of Government.

DEVELOP Tech Paper↗

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface, is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

Development of Subsonic Single Aft Engine (SUSAN) Attritable Research Vehicle (SARV) Wing Structure

This paper introduces a high-level overview of the design and development of the SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) Attritable Research Vehicle (SARV) wing structure. Unique design considerations were made for the structural layout of the wing to include storage for batteries, distributed electric engines, and the requirement for the wing to be shippable in a cargo box. The wing structure development process will be discussed including the wing internal structure design evolution, the fabrication of the manufacturing demonstration vehicle, wing outer mold line design, integration of wing internal structure and wing skins, and finally integration of the wing with the fuselage structure. Additionally, the development of the wing skin design will be discussed while highlighting the wing skin manufacturing demonstration panels as well as composite testing for material characterization purposes.

wing structure↗

Integrated (Physical and Digital) Collaborative Experimentation: Advancing Dialog and Leveraging by Aerospace Researchers and Developers

This paper 1) documents findings and observations from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Ground Test Technical Committee (GTTC) Future of Ground Test Working Group and the Applied Aeronautics Technical Committee (APATC) Collaborative Experiments & Computation Discussion Group, and 2) develops a more focused approach for sharing and advancing integrated development and use of physical experimental and computational capabilities for aerospace research and development. The GTTC and APATC are engaging with the larger AIAA technical community by creating a Focus Group on this topical area that will support working together on common interests in the public domain. This paper summarizes the knowledge capture from the last ten+ years and proposes a structure and scope going forward for the new, combined Focus Group.

ground testing↗

NASA JSC’s Simulant Development Lab Capabilities and Artemis Testing

The Simulant Development Lab (SDL) is a multifunctional collaborative workspace that supports the development, curation, analysis, testing, and distribution of planetary regolith simulants – including lunar, Martian, asteroidal, and other granular materials. The lab provides a multidisciplinary setting for scientific characterization of simulant physical properties and for engineering evaluations conducted with simulant test beds. To enable this work, the SDL curates and maintains a stock of more than 35 metric tons of simulant material. To evaluate these materials and support testing goals, the lab is equipped with a comprehensive suite of processing tools and analytical instruments. These capabilities enable the SDL’s mission at NASA’s Johnson Space Center to distribute, develop, process, characterize, and test regolith simulants for mission relevant applications. Through controlled and repeatable testing environments that replicate the physical and compositional properties of lunar regolith, the SDL supports Artemis hardware maturation, providing safe, Earth‑based analogs for evaluating systems that must withstand regolith dust interactions, physical wear and abrasion, and operational loads. The facility’s extensive simulant inventory and integrated geological and engineering test infrastructure accelerate technology readiness for Artemis and future exploration campaigns (e.g., future crewed or robotic missions to Mars).

Simulant Development Lab↗

Development of gravity-sensing organs in altered gravity

Experiments are described in which the development of the gravity-sensing organs was studied in newt larvae reared in microgravity on the IML-2 mission and in Aplysia embryos and larvae reared on a centrifuge at 1 to 5 g. In Aplysia embryos, the statolith (single dense mass on which gravity and linear acceleration act) was reduced in size in a graded fashion at increasing g. In early post-metamorphic Aplysia or even in isolated statocysts from such animals, the number of statoconia produced is reduced at high g. Newt larvae launched before any of the otoconia were formed and reared for 15 days in microgravity had nearly adult labyrinths at the end of the IML-2 mission. The otoliths of the saccule and utricle were the same size in flight and ground-reared larvae. However, the system of aragonitic otoconia produced in the endolymphatic sac in amphibians was much larger and developed earlier in the flight-reared larvae. At later developmental stages, the aragonitic otoconia enter and fill the saccule. One flight-reared larva was maintained for nine months post-flight and the size of the saccular otolith, as well as the volume of otoconia within the endolymphatic sac, were considerably larger than in age-matched, ground-reared newts. This suggests that rearing in microgravity initiates a process that continues for several months after introduction to 1-g, which greatly increases the volume of otoconia. The flight-reared animal had abnormal posture, pointing its head upward, whereas normal ground-reared newts always keep their head horizontal. This suggests that rearing for even a short period in microgravity can have lasting functional consequences in an animal subsequently reared in 1-g conditions on Earth.

STS-65 Shuttle Project↗

Spaceflight induces changes in the synaptic circuitry of the postnatal developing neocortex

The establishment of the adult pattern of neocortical circuitry depends on various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, whose modification during development can lead to alterations in cortical organization and function. We report the effect of 16 days of spaceflight [Neurolab mission; from postnatal day 14 (P14) to P30] on the neocortical representation of the hindlimb synaptic circuitry in rats. As a result, we show, for the first time, that development in microgravity leads to changes in the number and morphology of cortical synapses in a laminar-specific manner. In the layers II/III and Va, the synaptic cross-sectional lengths were significantly larger in flight animals than in ground control animals. Flight animals also showed significantly lower synaptic densities in layers II/III, IV and Va. The greatest difference was found in layer II/III, where there was a difference of 344 million synapses per mm(3) (15.6% decrease). Furthermore, after a 4 month period of re-adaptation to terrestrial gravity, some changes disappeared (i.e. the alterations were transient), while conversely, some new differences also appeared. For example, significant differences in synaptic density in layers II/III and Va after re-adaptation were no longer observed, whereas in layer IV the density of synapses increased notably in flight animals (a difference of 185 million synapses per mm(3) or 13.4%). In addition, all the changes observed only affected asymmetrical synapses, which are known to be excitatory. These results indicates that terrestrial gravity is a necessary environmental parameter for normal cortical synaptogenesis. These findings are fundamental in planning future long-term spaceflights.

Non-NASA Center↗