Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Grace Wusk

Publications and source records attributed to Grace Wusk.

10 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. In light of this transition, NASA senior leadership tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions: 1) what are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms, and 2) in light of these options, what modifications would be helpful to make in the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership and the NASA management processes as NASA plans for the transition of the ISS by 2030? To answer the first question, we conducted a stakeholder-driven analysis to identify a trade space of six differentiated model options. We then evaluated their performance in three potential future scenarios, according to evaluation criteria deemed important to stakeholders. The six models are illustrative and representational of a potential trade space. Additionally, each model requires change to current legislation. To further aid in leadership decision-making, we provided considerations for how to strengthen each model by mixing and matching different model aspects. To answer the second question, we looked to strengths of the top-performing models to evolve the current ISSNL-CASIS relationship and improve NASA’s posture for success post-ISS. We identified four possible modifications to the ISSNL-CASIS partnership and NASA’s management of these activities. By implementing these modifications early, NASA can increase the return from ISSNL-CASIS and help prepare for future models as one or more CLD replaces the ISS by 2030.

ISS↗
NASA NTRS2023

Cost and Benefit Analysis of Orbital Debris Remediation

This report describes a cost-benefit analysis of approaches for debris remediation, which is defined as any action taken to reduce the risks posed by orbital debris by moving, removing, or reusing it. A better understanding of the near-term costs and benefits of the different approaches to remediation can support decision-making about R&D investment and policy creation in this area.

Thomas J. Colvin↗
NASA NTRS2022

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

This work introduces and explores the concept of resiliency as it relates to future cislunar space architectures by 1) citing examples of its growing demand across government; 2) describing potential characteristics of resilient systems; 3) introducing a framework for evaluating the linkages between resilient capabilities and visions for future cislunar architectures; and 4) exercising the framework to identify and evaluate resiliency-enabling technical capabilities for cislunar space architectures. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggerate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

The International Space Station National Lab (ISSNL) was established through Congressional authority in 2005 and has been managed by a nonprofit called the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) since 2011 to support research, development, education, and commercial activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity and orbital activities in LEO in preparation for the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and transition to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) in the 2030 timeframe. Specifically, our study team within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy addressed the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms? To inform the trade space of potential models, we conducted over 40 discussions with stakeholders internal and external to NASA and reviewed over 35 documents related to LEO legislation, commercialization, models, and activities. Following the extensive literature review and discussions with diverse stakeholders, we defined and evaluated six models, in addition to the current ISSNL model. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios (dynamic, steady, and limited growth of the commercial LEO market and activities) and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria (ability to meet NASA’s needs, adaptability, opportunity for collaboration, market sustainability, and equity and accessibility). The six models in the future trade space were: • Government Research Broker: Customizable research efforts on transport vehicles and CLDs • Innovation Campus: Modern terrestrial campus with workforce focus • Anchor Tenant: Long-term, substantial agreement for leasing space on a single CLD • Fee for Service: Free market approach with NASA-sponsored grants and service/data buys • Matchmaker: Neutral third-party connecting users to platforms • Institute Network: Network of separate but related efforts to enable commercial scaling The Government Research Broker model performed best across the scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibited positive aspects, the two models performed most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. The six models presented in this study are representative of the potential trade space and are illustrative examples. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align to their priorities more closely by using combinations of the unique model features provided in our analysis. The optimal model is likely a combination of features from multiple models. Building upon this work to best position NASA and the diverse stakeholders of LEO activities for success post-ISS, further work will explore the near-term impact of preparing for the transition of the ISS to CLDs by identifying opportunities for modifying the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many reviewers and discussants, internal and external to NASA, that contributed to the work.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

Resiliency is an aspirational metric, and it is a common goal for complex systems – be they engineered space architectures, geopolitical networks, or the human immune system. However, despite the ubiquitous desire for resiliency, the concept is surprisingly difficult to define and apply to future planning efforts. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggregate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post–International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. As the LEO ecosystem evolves through growth of the commercial space industry and NASA’s strategic goal to support the development of a robust LEO economy in which many stakeholders on Earth can participate, so must the way NASA facilitates government activities to ensure citizens realize the highest return on their investment in LEO. Specifically, this study aims to answer the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or -subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms?

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cost Benefit Analysis of Space Debris Remediation

These slides provide a high-level summary of a cost-benefit analysis of approaches for debris remediation, which is defined as any action taken to reduce the risks posed by orbital debris by moving, removing, or reusing it. A better understanding of the near-term costs and benefits of the different approaches to remediation can support decision-making about R&D investment and policy creation in this area.

Tom Colvin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗