Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “historical timeline”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Space Shuttle Program Primary Avionics Software System (PASS) Success Legacy - Major Accomplishments and Lessons Learned Detail Historical Timeline Analysis

This presentation focuses on the Space Shuttle Primary Avionics Software System (PASS) and the people who developed and maintained this system. One theme is to provide quantitative data on software quality and reliability over a 30 year period. Consistent data relates to code break discrepancies. Requirements were supplied from external sources. Requirement inspections and measurements not implemented until later, beginning in 1985. Second theme is to focus on the people and organization of PASS. Many individuals have supported the PASS project over the entire period while transitioning from company to company and contract to contract. Major events and transitions have impacted morale (both positively and negatively) across the life of the project.

Orr, James K.↗
NASA NTRS1995

The transition of GTDS to the Unix workstation environment

Future Flight Dynamics systems should take advantage of the possibilities provided by current and future generations of low-cost, high performance workstation computing environments with Graphical User Interface. The port of the existing mainframe Flight Dynamics systems to the workstation environment offers an economic approach for combining the tremendous engineering heritage that has been encapsulated in these systems with the advantages of the new computing environments. This paper will describe the successful transition of the Draper Laboratory R&D version of GTDS (Goddard Trajectory Determination System) from the IBM Mainframe to the Unix workstation environment. The approach will be a mix of historical timeline notes, descriptions of the technical problems overcome, and descriptions of associated SQA (software quality assurance) issues.

Carter, D.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Students Soaring High with Software Spinoff

An educational software product designed by the Educational Technology Team at Ames Research Center is bringing actual aeronautical work performed by NASA engineers to the public in an interactive format for the very first time, in order to introduce future generations of engineers to the fundamentals of flight. The "Exploring Aeronautics" multimedia CD-ROM was created for use by teachers of students in grades 5 through 8. The software offers an introduction to aeronautics and covers the fundamentals of flight, including how airplanes take off, fly, and land. It contains a historical timeline and a glossary of aeronautical terms, examines different types of aircraft, and familiarizes its audience with the tools used by researchers to test aircraft designs, like wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics. "Exploring Aeronautics" was done in cartoon animation to make it appealing to kids," notes Andrew Doser, an Ames graphic artist who helped to produce the CD-ROM, along with a team of multimedia programmers, artists, and educators, in conjunction with numerous Ames scientists. In addition to lively animation, the software features QuickTime movies and highly intuitive tools to promote usage of NASA s scientific methods in the world of aeronautics.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Testing of Manned Spacecraft: Historical Precedent

For the first time in nearly 30 years, NASA is developing a new manned space flight launch system. The Ares I will carry crew and cargo to not only the International Space Station, but onward for the future exploration of the Moon and Mars. The Ares I control system and structural designs use complex computer models for their development. An Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test (IVGVT) will validate the efficacy of these computer models. The IVGVT will reduce the technical risk of unexpected conditions that could place the vehicle or crew in jeopardy. The Ares Project Office's Flight and Integrated Test Office commissioned a study to determine how historical programs, such as Saturn and Space Shuttle, validated the structural dynamics of an integrated flight vehicle. The study methodology was to examine the historical record and seek out members of the engineering community who recall the development of historic manned launch vehicles. These records and interviews provided insight into the best practices and lessons learned from these historic development programs. The information that was gathered allowed the creation of timelines of the historic development programs. The timelines trace the programs from the development of test articles through test preparation, test operations, and test data reduction efforts. These timelines also demonstrate how the historical tests fit within their overall vehicle development programs. Finally, the study was able to quantify approximate staffing levels during historic development programs. Using this study, the Flight and Integrated Test Office was able to evaluate the Ares I Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test schedule and workforce budgets in light of the historical precedents to determine if the test had schedule or cost risks associated with it.

Lemke, Paul R.↗
NASA NTRS1989

The Space Station Freedom evolution-phase - Crew-EVA demand for robotic substitution by task primitive

Space Station Freedom represents a significant demand for automation and robotics services as substitutes for crew EVAs. Results are reported from a study aimed at identifying the demand for crew EVA and the crew-task primitive distributions derived for input to future robotic substitution studies. Generic EVA tasks are developed from historical EVA mission timelines, and a set of 70 task primitives defined. The generic task activities are partitioned into task setup, kernel, and tear-down, with standardized task times and frequencies. These standardized times are coupled with inputs from numerous mission data bases in a probabilistic simulation to obtain estimates of total crew-EVA task time demand by crew task primitive. The use of probabilistic model is found to be crucial for understanding, isolating, and addressing the large uncertainties in the EVA task kernels.

Smith, Jeffrey H.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Research and Development History of Glass Bubbles Bulk-Fill Thermal Insulation Systems for Large-Scale Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tanks

Based on the published literature record, this document provides an overview of the research and development of glass bubbles bulk-fill thermal insulation systems for cryogenic equipment in general and, in particular, for large-scale cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage spheres. Glass bubbles (also known as hollow glass microspheres) are used in place of perlite powder which began use in double-wall cryogenic tanks in the 1930s. Included in this overview is a historical summary, a development timeline, a selected publications list, and the key technical points from those publications.

Cryogenic storage tanks↗
NASA NTRS2018

Predicting Crew Time Allocations for Lunar Orbital Missions Based on Historical ISS Operational Activities

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to define candidate architectures for the planned lunar “Gateway”, it will be necessary to have a detailed understanding of how the crew will inhabit, operate, and maintain the spacecraft. The nature of the Gateway vehicle systems configuration and operations will have a direct impact on the scope of work activities required of the crew. Crew work schedules are sensitive to variations in spacecraft architecture, visiting vehicle activities, and logistics operations – particularly within short duration missions as initially planned for the lunar Gateway. These system and operational configurations must be taken into account when planning for crew time availability to conduct science activities on Gateway missions. This paper presents a methodology that is used to predict crew time distributions for lunar Gateway missions, as applied in NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). The process utilized for evaluating crew time distributions is based on the categorization of all crew activities into a standardized ontology. Historical ISS daily crew timeline data from July 20, 2011 (post STS retirement) to present day was captured via the Operational Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS) database and characterized according to the standardized ontology. This process enabled correlation and statistical analysis of the ISS data according to common mission parameters such as crew size, ECLSS system design, vehicle traffic operations, and logistics delivery operations. The results of the statistical analysis are a set of crew time distributions for each activity category. These distributions are then utilized within the ECTM to examine crew time allocations based on mission parameter inputs, which serve to characterize the Gateway mission configurations. Results for predicted crew time allocations for representative short duration Gateway missions are presented. These results can be used to evaluate crew schedule availability for science and utilization activities. Variations in expected mission architectures and mission operations are accounted for to correct crew time predictions. The analysis is being leveraged to plan utilization capability objectives that are achievable on the Gateway missions, as well as inform the viability of various mission architecture options.

Stromgren, Chel↗
NASA NTRS2022

Maintenance Human Factors and Flight Safety

This chapter will chronicle the journey of the community of operators, regulators, and researchers who embarked upon the task of identifying critical human factors of maintenance and inspection, establishing a database and research tools, developing practical strategies for reducing the risks of maintenance and inspection errors, and understanding its critical role in preserving flight safety. We will take a historical perspective, developing a timeline that is largely driven by key events such as accidents and regulatory/government actions and initiatives. Part 1 focuses on how the field of maintenance human factors was built, beginning in the late 1980’s. Part 2 describes the development of methods and tools for meeting the maintenance human factors challenges identified. Finally, Part 3 updates the original chapter by focusing on issues that have persisted or emerged since 2010.

maintenance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of Crew Time for Maintenance and Repairs Activities for Lunar Surface Missions

NASA is currently evaluating different methods to predict how much time crewmembers will spend conducting repair and maintenance activities on future space missions. As mission scope and spacecraft architectures change, it will be necessary to understand how crew repair and maintenance timelines are impacted by mission operations and technology changes. Past work has been done using historical ISS data to accurately predict crew habitation and operation timelines, resulting in the development of NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). However, understanding crew maintenance and repair requirements has posed a unique challenge due to the complexity of available datasets, the probabilistic nature of sub-system failures, and the impacts of reliability growth on failure rates. This paper presents a methodology to collect and condition empirical repair and maintenance time data from available data sets, to extrapolate from that data to estimate projected maintenance and repair times for a lunar Surface Habitat, and to assess how uncertainty in repair time could impact utilization time on the lunar surface. NASA International Space Station (ISS) maintenance and crew time data are logged into two central databases, the Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) and the Operations Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS) respectively. Separately, each of these two datasets capture only portions of the complete set of data required to generate an accurate assessment of crew time spent on maintenance activities at a sub-system level. MDC provides a detailed catalog of failure events and an overview of the failure’s required maintenance and OPTimIS provides a description of crew activities and crew time durations dedicated to maintenance. To create a more useful crew time estimate for maintenance timelines, the authors developed a methodology to capture relevant data from each set and combine and utilize that data by linking crew time requirements to specific components. The authors compare the failure logs in the MDC to crew activity logs pulled from OPTimIS and then process the data to estimate required repair times for each failure event. Data is also classified by the outcome of each repair event, whether the failed component was replaced or whether it was repaired in place. The entire maintenance activity dataset is then categorized based on the class of failed component to allow for a statistically significant sample size for each class and to provide accurate crew time estimates for any components lacking relevant data. This resultant component repair time data can be used in the future to generate Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) estimates and confidence intervals for each class of component based on a probabilistic distribution of documented maintenance events. These improved MTTR values can then be applied to candidate element sub-system architectures, along with component Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data to generate distributions for potential required system crew repair time estimates for a given mission. Repair time distributions can then be used to develop more accurate crew schedules and to assess potential available utilization time.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRS2018

Using NASA's Worldview to Convey Scientific Finding

NASA Worldview is an interactive interface for browsing full-resolution, global satellite imagery. The application can show single or multiple layers of satellite imagery with over 700 layers available. Each layer has options such as opacity and color palettes which can be adjusted to differentiate layers or underlying data values. The timeline feature allows end-users to study historical events: changes over time can be visualized using the animation tool and exported to animated GIFs. Users can even compare two separate days using the A|B comparison feature. Every time the state of the application changes, it is saved in the URL making it easy to share findings with others.The application is accessible online for anyone to use at any time and the source code is available on GitHub.com. The Worldview source code was designed to be customizable allowing end users to turn on/off features and brand the application for their specific use case. Worldview has code contributors and end-users from all over the world who use the official tool and create personal instances to test and convey their own data.From a team of scientists studying weather over the Philippines, to a group in France studying high environmental risks, Worldview's features and portability allows end-users all over the World to gain valuable earth science insights in a multitude of ways. This presentation will emphasis how end-users are using Worldview to convey their findings.

Rice, Zachary↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of Crew Time for Maintenance and Repair Activities for Lunar Surface Missions

NASA is currently evaluating different methods to predict how much time crewmembers will spend conducting repair and maintenance activities on future space missions. As mission scope and spacecraft architectures change, understanding how crew repair and maintenance timelines are impacted by mission operations and technology changes is vital for future mission planning. Past work has been done using historical International Space Station (ISS) data to accurately predict crew habitation and operation timelines, resulting in the development of NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). However, understanding crew maintenance and repair requirements has posed a unique challenge due to the complexity of available datasets, the probabilistic nature of sub-system failures, and the impacts of reliability growth on failure rates. This paper presents a methodology to collect and condition empirical repair and maintenance time data from available datasets, to extrapolate from that data to estimate projected maintenance and repair times for a lunar Surface Habitat (SH), and to assess how uncertainty in repair time could impact utilization time on the lunar surface. NASA ISS maintenance and crew time data are logged into two central databases: the Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) and the Operations Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS). Separately, each of these two datasets capture only portions of the complete set of data required to generate an accurate assessment of crew time spent on maintenance activities at a sub-system level. To create a more useful crew time estimate for maintenance timelines, the authors developed a methodology to capture relevant data from each set and combine and utilize that data by linking crew time requirements to specific components. The authors compare the failure logs in the MDC to crew activity logs pulled from OPTimIS and then process the data to estimate required repair time for each failure and repair event. The entire maintenance activity dataset is then categorized based on the class of failed component to ensure a significant sample size for each class and accurate crew time estimates for any components lacking relevant data. This resultant component repair time data can be used in the future to generate Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) estimates and confidence intervals for each class of component based on a probabilistic distribution of documented maintenance events. These improved MTTR values can then be applied to candidate element sub-system architectures, along with component Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data to generate distributions for potential required system crew repair time estimates for a given mission. The authors applied these modeling methods to a case study of a crewed mission to the planned SH and produced expected corrective maintenance crew time distributions. The results produced an expected corrective maintenance crew time at over 24 hours per mission, and a maintenance crew time distribution that reflects the importance of planning for sufficient maintenance requirements each mission. Repair time distributions can then be used to develop more accurate crew schedules and to assess potential available utilization time.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRS1998

Reusable Rocket Engine Operability Modeling and Analysis

This paper describes the methodology, model, input data, and analysis results of a reusable launch vehicle engine operability study conducted with the goal of supporting design from an operations perspective. Paralleling performance analyses in schedule and method, this requires the use of metrics in a validated operations model useful for design, sensitivity, and trade studies. Operations analysis in this view is one of several design functions. An operations concept was developed given an engine concept and the predicted operations and maintenance processes incorporated into simulation models. Historical operations data at a level of detail suitable to model objectives were collected, analyzed, and formatted for use with the models, the simulations were run, and results collected and presented. The input data used included scheduled and unscheduled timeline and resource information collected into a Space Transportation System (STS) Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) historical launch operations database. Results reflect upon the importance not only of reliable hardware but upon operations and corrective maintenance process improvements.

Christenson, R. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Early Assessments of Crew Timelines for the Lunar Surface Habitat

As NASA progresses towards sustained crewed space missions, crew timelines will become increasingly important to achieving mission goals. While it is desirable to spend as much time as possible during crewed space missions on science activities and experiments, there are a large number of activities that crew members must perform each day in order to maintain both crew and vehicle health and safety. The time available for science activities in space is highly dependent on mandatory tasks required for crew and vehicle health and safety. The different crewed activities need to be planned accordingly long before the start of a mission in order to optimize crew time for science. To begin assessing the potential crew time for available for science, an understanding of the requirements to maintain crew and vehicle health and safety is needed. These additional activities may include sleep, exercise, vehicle maintenance, logistics handling, crew personal time, as well as many other tasks. The remaining time outside of these required tasks, within a reasonable crew work schedule, can be dedicated to science operations. This paper will detail a collaborative effort to analyzing crew times for sustained spaceflight missions and how the results of that analysis are applied to the crew timeline for the proposed Lunar Surface Habitat (SH).To determine the crew time for all of these required activities, an analysis was conducted utilizing defined agency requirements and historical crewed mission data. Predicted crew activity times were integrated into a daily schedule in order to optimize the crew’s time during the mission. This methodology was utilized to produce expected crew timelines for NASA’s proposed Artemis Base Camp (ABC) missions. The current plans for the ABC contain two different sustained habitats, the Pressurized Rover (PR) and the Surface Habitat (SH). While the crew are separated between the two habitats, the timelines for each element are dependent on the other element’s operations, so the two element timelines are formed in conjunction with one another. The results described in this paper, however, will focus solely on the crew timeline in the SH. This paper will explain the methodology behind predicting the required crew time spent in the SH for each activity, and the process of incorporating these predicted crew times into a coherent schedule.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRS2017

Restricted by Whom? A Historical Review of Strategies and Organization for Restricted Earth Return of Samples from NASA Planetary Missions

This presentation is a review of the timeline for Apollo's approach to Planetary Protection, then known as Planetary Quarantine. Return of samples from Apollo 11, 12 and 14 represented NASA's first attempts into conducting what is now known as Restricted Earth Return, where return of samples is undertaken by the Agency with the utmost care for the impact that the samples may have on Earth's environment due to the potential presence of microbial or other life forms that originate from the parent body (in this case, Earth's Moon).

Apollo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗
NASA NTRS2000

Design of a 2-Hour Prebreathe Protocol for Space Walks (EVAs) from the International Space Station (ISS)

The majority of extravehicular activities (EVAs) performed from the shuttle use a 10.2 psi staged decompression. The International Space Station (ISS) will operate at 14.7 psi, requiring crews to "campout" in the airlock at 10.2 psi. The constraints associated with campout (crew isolation, oxygen usage, and waste management), provided the rationale to develop a 2-hour prebreathe protocol from 14.7 psi. Previous studies on the affect of microgravity and exercise during prebreathe suggested the feasibility of this approach. Various combinations of adynamia (nonwalking subjects), prebreathe exercise doses, and space suit donning options (10.2 vs. 14.7 psi) were analyzed against timeline and consumable constraints. Prospective decompression sickness (DCS) and venous gas emboli (VGE) accept/reject criteria were defined from statistical analysis of historical DCS data, combined with risk management of DCS under ISS mission circumstances. Maximum operational DCS levels were defined based on protecting for EVA capability with two crew members at 95% confidence, throughout ISS lifetime (within the constraints of NASA DCS disposition policy JPG 1800.3). The accept / reject limits were adjusted for greater safety (including Grade IV VGE criteria) based on analysis of related medical factors. Monte-Carlo simulation was performed to design a closed sequential, multi-center laboratory trial, including the capability of rejecting the primary protocol and testing at least one alternate exercise dose, within the 2-hour prebreathe. The 2-hour protocol incorporates 0, breathing for 5 0 min at 14.7 psi, including 10 min dual cycle ergometry at 75%VO(2max). It requires an additional 30 minO2breathing during depress from 14.7 to 10.2 psi, followed by a 30-60 min suit donning break at 10.2 psi/26.5% O2. It concludes with a 40 min in-suit O2 prebreathe. The protocol would be accepted for operations, if the incidence of DCS was less than 15% and Grade IV VGE less than 20%, both at 95% confidence. The above protocol and accept/reject limits were implemented in a multi-center study.

Gernhardt, M. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Genesis Solar Wind – Capture, Return, Curate and Analyze: Looking Backward and Creating a Timeline

Introduction: In 1997 NASA’S Discovery Program selected the Genesis mission proposal to return solar wind samples to Earth for laboratory analyses. Principal Investigator Donald S. Burnett and the science team defined the purity of collector materials and ability to analyze solar wind composition to the precision required for planetary science. As a small mission, focused on a well-defined science goal, yet needing careful attention to engineering details, the communication among scientists and engineers, nurtured by Don Burnett, was exceptional. Genesis Mission and Curation Legacy: Genesis, as the first U. S. spacecraft to return astromaterial samples since Apollo, not only integrated the mission planning and flight teams, but also the science and sample curation teams during the mission development period. Since Genesis is a sample return mission, the Science Team was essential in certifying the collectors (sample containers for solar atoms). From inception, Genesis established mission funding for returned sample curation. JSC was lead in contamination control during mission preparation, including establishment of an ISO 4 cleanroom facility and use of ultrapure water (UPW) for cleaning flight hardware (and, as it turned out, for cleaning collectors after the mishap). Reliable, fast communication among scientists, engineers and curators at the hands-on level established deep respect among team members and efficient decision-making. JSC’s 50-years of astromaterial sample curation provided experienced sample processors onsite during recovery in Utah (a deep bench for emergency response). Post-recovery curation included iterative collaboration with science sample users to clean or verify cleanliness of samples. The science legacy from Genesis is addressed by Burnett and Jurewicz, this volume. In The Beginning: After Apollo sample return, Burnett and Marcia Neugebauer at JPL began discussing a solar wind sample return, with Neugebauer arguing that separate collection of solar wind regimes was essential science. By 1992 a solar wind sample return mission was presented at a workshop, and by 1994 a mission was proposed named Suess-Urey. The mission was re-proposed under a new name GENESIS and selected in 1997. Susan Niebur captured the Genesis mission history and stories, from high level management documents and from many interviews with participants [2]. Her account lets readers glimpse personality of participants in quotations from interviews. Need and Scope for Detailed Technical Timeline: A timeline constructed from lower level task documents has been initiated to document the resources and skills actually used, as well as task sequence or concurrency. Timelines for high level mission events are captured in two documents [1] [2] and for detailed re-entry events in [3]. A detailed technical timeline for Genesis mission and curation activities will provide data points for lower level tasks, such as ISO 4 curation facility construction time, preparation for nominal sample field recovery, mishap recovery, and UPW expansion. Changes in technology context 1990-2024: Semiconductor technologies were easily accessible in the U.S.A. (1990-1999), and the Genesis team used those resources for cleanroom design and UPW system expansion. Image documentation was changing from film to digital during cleanroom construction and payload cleaning (1997-2001). Engineering design was done using computer aided design proprietary software, making more difficult the archiving of payload configuration and materials. Email of documents, tracked delivery service and virtual meeting capability greatly improved communication efficiency. Information sources – Pre-launch mission preparation: Examples of mission science, engineering and contamination control are collector purity testing, payload design/fabrication and ISO 4 cleanroom construction. Information on timing of these activities comes from facility readiness reviews, management reviews, shipping documents, procurement documents, test reports, travel documents, laboratory logs, Quality Assurance documents, dates on images, participant notebooks and emails. Information sources – Sample return re-entry and field recovery activities: Information comes from event timelines produced by Mid-Air Recovery team, Lockheed team lead notes and from chase video, JPL Quality Assurance. Information also comes from images and logbooks from UTTR cleanroom operations and from curatorial documents. Information sources – Resulting science and sample cleaning processes: Agendas from the annual gatherings of the science team initially trace testing for collector purity/cleanliness, and after sample recovery, include collector cleaning and cleanliness assessment. Post-recovery documents include curatorial orders and procedures, sample allocation documents and LPSC abstracts. Timeline Objectives: A simple spreadsheet timeline with headers DATE, EVENT, PEOPLE, COMMENT, INFORMATION SOURCE has been initiated and currently has over 90 entries. While this is not definitive historical research, it is a quick look at the evolution of Genesis curation with pointers to documents or people with information. Engineers for future missions may find useful points of comparison for development of facilities. References:[1] Genesis Mission Reference Document, (2011) JPL D-62382.[2] Niebur S. M., edited by Brown D. W. (2023) NASA’s Discovery Program: The First 20 Years of Competitive Planetary Exploration, NASA-SP-2023-4238.[3] Genesis Mishap Investigation Board Report, Vol. 1 (July 2005).

solar wind↗
NASA NTRS2003

NASA: Past, Present, and Future

A brief timeline of spaceflight milestones from the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to the International Space Station is presented in this viewgraph presentation, together with historical photographs.

Rodriquez, Pete↗