Engineering topics

Jones, Harry

Publications and source records attributed to Jones, Harry.

At least 19 records

NASA NTRS2015

Evaluation of Brine Processing Technologies for Spacecraft Wastewater

Brine drying systems may be used in spaceflight. There are several advantages to using brine processing technologies for long-duration human missions including a reduction in resupply requirements and achieving high water recovery ratios. The objective of this project was to evaluate four technologies for the drying of spacecraft water recycling system brine byproducts. The technologies tested were NASA's Forward Osmosis Brine Drying (FOBD), Paragon's Ionomer Water Processor (IWP), NASA's Brine Evaporation Bag (BEB) System, and UMPQUA's Ultrasonic Brine Dewatering System (UBDS). The purpose of this work was to evaluate the hardware using feed streams composed of brines similar to those generated on board the International Space Station (ISS) and future exploration missions. The brine formulations used for testing were the ISS Alternate Pretreatment and Solution 2 (Alt Pretreat). The brines were generated using the Wiped-film Rotating-disk (WFRD) evaporator, which is a vapor compression distillation system that is used to simulate the function of the ISS Urine Processor Assembly (UPA). Each system was evaluated based on the results from testing and Equivalent System Mass (ESM) calculations. A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) matrix was also developed as a method to compare the different technologies based on customer and engineering requirements.

recycling↗

NASA NTRS2010

Life Support with Failures and Variable Supply

The life support system for long duration missions will recycle oxygen and water to reduce the material resupply mass from Earth. The impact of life support failures was investigated by dynamic simulation of a lunar outpost habitat life support model. The model was modified to simulate resupply delays, power failures, recycling system failures, and storage failures. Many failures impact the lunar outpost water supply directly or indirectly, depending on the water balance and water storage. Failure effects on the water supply are reduced if Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) water use is low and the water supply is ample. Additional oxygen can be supplied by scavenging unused propellant or by production from regolith, but the amounts obtained can vary significantly. The requirements for oxygen and water can also vary significantly, especially for EVA. Providing storage buffers can improve efficiency and reliability, and minimize the chance of supply failing to meet demand. Life support failures and supply variations can be survivable if effective solutions are provided by the system design

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

The Systems Engineering Process for Human Support Technology Development

Systems engineering is designing and optimizing systems. This paper reviews the systems engineering process and indicates how it can be applied in the development of advanced human support systems. Systems engineering develops the performance requirements, subsystem specifications, and detailed designs needed to construct a desired system. Systems design is difficult, requiring both art and science and balancing human and technical considerations. The essential systems engineering activity is trading off and compromising between competing objectives such as performance and cost, schedule and risk. Systems engineering is not a complete independent process. It usually supports a system development project. This review emphasizes the NASA project management process as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5B. The process is a top down phased approach that includes the most fundamental activities of systems engineering - requirements definition, systems analysis, and design. NPR 7120.5B also requires projects to perform the engineering analyses needed to ensure that the system will operate correctly with regard to reliability, safety, risk, cost, and human factors. We review the system development project process, the standard systems engineering design methodology, and some of the specialized systems analysis techniques. We will discuss how they could apply to advanced human support systems development. The purpose of advanced systems development is not directly to supply human space flight hardware, but rather to provide superior candidate systems that will be selected for implementation by future missions. The most direct application of systems engineering is in guiding the development of prototype and flight experiment hardware. However, anticipatory systems engineering of possible future flight systems would be useful in identifying the most promising development projects.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Technical Civilizations in the Galaxy

Are there other technical civilizations in the galaxy? Past analyses come to different conclusions. Cocconi and Morrison demonstrated in 1959 that interstellar radio communication was possible and Drake conducted the first search for beacons in 1960. The Drake equation estimates the number of galactic civilizations that are transmitting beacons as the product of the rate of star formation in the galaxy, the fraction of stars with planets, their average number of earthlike planets, the fraction with intelligent life and interstellar communication, and the average lifetime of a technical civilization. The Drake model of the galaxy contains many technical civilizations with communication but no interstellar travel. Michael Hart in 1975 strongly challenged this model. Starting with the fact that no extraterrestrials have been observed on Earth, and assuming that interstellar colonization is possible, he concluded that it was very likely that we are the first civilization in our galaxy and that searching or beacons is probably a waste of time and money. The Fermi paradox similarly reasons that if extraterrestrials exist: they should be here, and asks, Where are they? The Hart/Fermi model of the galaxy contains only our civilization and suggests we may colonize the galaxy. A third galactic model is that we are alone but will never develop interstellar travel. The fourth alternate model has many technical civilizations, with interstellar travel and colonization. The possibilities are clear and momentous. Either we are the only technical civilization in the galaxy or there are others. Technical civilizations will colonize the galaxy or not. We have four cosmic conjectures - one or many, colonization or not - but however unlikely they seem based on our limited evidence, one of these four models must be collect.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Air and Water System (AWS) Design and Technology Selection for the Vision for Space Exploration

This paper considers technology selection for the crew air and water recycling systems to be used in long duration human space exploration. The specific objectives are to identify the most probable air and water technologies for the vision for space exploration and to identify the alternate technologies that might be developed. The approach is to conduct a preliminary first cut systems engineering analysis, beginning with the Air and Water System (AWS) requirements and the system mass balance, and then define the functional architecture, review the International Space Station (ISS) technologies, and discuss alternate technologies. The life support requirements for air and water are well known. The results of the mass flow and mass balance analysis help define the system architectural concept. The AWS includes five subsystems: Oxygen Supply, Condensate Purification, Urine Purification, Hygiene Water Purification, and Clothes Wash Purification. AWS technologies have been evaluated in the life support design for ISS node 3, and in earlier space station design studies, in proposals for the upgrade or evolution of the space station, and in studies of potential lunar or Mars missions. The leading candidate technologies for the vision for space exploration are those planned for Node 3 of the ISS. The ISS life support was designed to utilize Space Station Freedom (SSF) hardware to the maximum extent possible. The SSF final technology selection process, criteria, and results are discussed. Would it be cost-effective for the vision for space exploration to develop alternate technology? This paper will examine this and other questions associated with AWS design and technology selection.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Proposed Project Selection Method for Human Support Research and Technology Development (HSR&TD)

The purpose of HSR&TD is to deliver human support technologies to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) that will be selected for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are acceptable. HSR&TD must select an may of technology development projects, guide them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the resulting number of usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project scoring methodology to support managing the HSR&TD project portfolio. Researchers strongly disagree as to what are the best technology project selection methods, or even if there are any proven ones. Technology development is risky and outstanding achievements are rare and unpredictable. There is no simple formula for success. Organizations that are satisfied with their project selection approach typically use a mix of financial, strategic, and scoring methods in an open, established, explicit, formal process. This approach helps to build consensus and develop management insight. It encourages better project proposals by clarifying the desired project attributes. We propose a project scoring technique based on a method previously used in a federal laboratory and supported by recent research. Projects are ranked by their perceived relevance, risk, and return - a new 3 R's. Relevance is the degree to which the project objective supports the HSR&TD goal of developing usable advanced human support technologies. Risk is the estimated probability that the project will achieve its specific objective. Return is the reduction in mission life cycle cost obtained if the project is successful. If the project objective technology performs a new function with no current cost, its return is the estimated cash value of performing the new function. The proposed project selection scoring method includes definitions of the criteria, a project evaluation questionnaire, and a scoring formula.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Systems Engineering in NASA's R&TD Programs

Systems engineering is largely the analysis and planning that support the design, development, and operation of systems. The most common application of systems engineering is in guiding systems development projects that use a phased process of requirements, specifications, design, and development. This paper investigates how systems engineering techniques should be applied in research and technology development programs for advanced space systems. These programs should include anticipatory engineering of future space flight systems and a project portfolio selection process, as well as systems engineering for multiple development projects.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2005

Project Selection for NASA's R&D Programs

The purpose of NASA s Research and Development (R&D) programs is to provide advanced human support technologies for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The new technologies must be sufficiently attractive and proven to be selectable for future missions. This requires identifying promising candidate technologies and advancing them in technology readiness until they are likely options for flight. The R&D programs must select an array of technology development projects, manage them, and either terminate or continue them, so as to maximize the delivered number of potentially usable advanced human support technologies. This paper proposes an effective project selection methodology to help manage NASA R&D project portfolios.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2004

Designing to Mitigate Food Growing Failures in Space

Future space life support systems may use crop plants to grow most of the crew s food. A harvest failure can reduce the food available for future consumption. If the previously stored food is insufficient to reach the next harvest, the crew may go hungry. This paper considers how the overall food supply system should be modified to cope with food production failures. The food supply concept for a mission will use grown food, or stored food, cIr both. The optimum food supply mix depends on the costs and failure probabilities of stored and grown food. A simple food system model assumes that either we obtain the nominal harvest or a failure occurs and no food is harvested. Given the probability that any particular harvest fails, it is easy to compute the expected number of failures and the total food shortfall over a mission. If some food is grown and the probability of harvest failure is high, a non-redundant system has an unacceptable likelihood that the crew will have no food for a full harvest period. Food supply reliability must be increased either by supplying more food initially or by increasing food production capacity. We can obtain a very reliable food supply even when the harvest failure rate is high. If the cost of growing food is much less than the cost of providing stored food, it is better to provide redundant food growing capacity than to increase initial storage. A more realistic biomass production failure model allows the harvest amount or time to vary around the nominal values, using stochastic modeling with repeated Monte Carlo simulation, but such failures have minor impact compared to a complete harvest failure.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2004

Systems Engineering Techniques for ALS Decision Making

The Advanced Life Support (ALS) Metric is the predominant tool for predicting the cost of ALS systems. Metric goals for the ALS Program are daunting, requiring a threefold increase in the ALS Metric by 2010. Confounding the problem, the rate new ALS technologies reach the maturity required for consideration in the ALS Metric and the rate at which new configurations are developed is slow, limiting the search space and potentially giving the perspective of a ALS technology, the ALS Metric may remain elusive. This paper is a sequel to a paper published in the proceedings of the 2003 ICES conference entitled, "Managing to the metric: an approach to optimizing life support costs." The conclusions of that paper state that the largest contributors to the ALS Metric should be targeted by ALS researchers and management for maximum metric reductions. Certainly, these areas potentially offer large potential benefits to future ALS missions; however, the ALS Metric is not the only decision-making tool available to the community. To facilitate decision-making within the ALS community a combination of metrics should be utilized, such as the Equivalent System Mass (ESM)-based ALS metric, but also those available through techniques such as life cycle costing and faithful consideration of the sensitivity of the assumed models and data. Often a lack of data is cited as the reason why these techniques are not considered for utilization. An existing database development effort within the ALS community, known as OPIS, may provide the opportunity to collect the necessary information to enable the proposed systems analyses. A review of these additional analysis techniques is provided, focusing on the data necessary to enable these. The discussion is concluded by proposing how the data may be utilized by analysts in the future.

Rodriquez, Luis F.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Searching for Alien Life Having Unearthly Biochemistry

The search for alien life in the solar system should include exploring unearth-like environments for life having an unearthly biochemistry. We expect alien life to conform to the same basic chemical and ecological constraints as terrestrial life, since inorganic chemistry and the laws of ecosystems appear to be universal. Astrobiologists usually assume alien life will use familiar terrestrial biochemistry and therefore hope to find alien life by searching near water or by supplying hydrocarbons. The assumption that alien life is likely to be based on carbon and water is traditional and plausible. It justifies high priority for missions to search for alien life on Mars and Europa, but it unduly restricts the search for alien life. Terrestrial carbon-water biochemistry is not possible on most of the bodies of our solar system, but all alien life is not necessarily based on terrestrial biochemistry. If alien life has a separate origin from Earth life, and if can survive in an environment extremely different from Earth's, then alien life may have unearthly biochemistry. There may be other solvents than water that support alien life and other elements than carbon that form complex life enabling chain molecules. Rather than making the exploration-restricting assumption that all life requires carbon, water, and terrestrial biochemistry, we should make the exploration-friendly assumption that indigenous, environmentally adapted, alien life forms might flourish using unearthly biochemistry in many places in the solar system. Alien life might be found wherever there is free energy and a physical/chemical system capable of using that energy to build living structures. Alien life may be discovered by the detection of some general non-equilibrium chemistry rather than of terrestrial biochemistry. We should explore all the potential abodes of life in the solar system, including those where life based on terrestrial biochemistry can not exist.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Using System Mass (SM), Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM) or Life Cycle Mass (LCM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS) Reporting

The Advanced Life Support (ALS) has used a single number, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), for both reporting progress and technology selection. ESM is the launch mass required to provide a space system. ESM indicates launch cost. ESM alone is inadequate for technology selection, which should include other metrics such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and also consider perfom.arxe 2nd risk. ESM has proven difficult to implement as a reporting metric, partly because it includes non-mass technology selection factors. Since it will not be used exclusively for technology selection, a new reporting metric can be made easier to compute and explain. Systems design trades-off performance, cost, and risk, but a risk weighted cost/benefit metric would be too complex to report. Since life support has fixed requirements, different systems usually have roughly equal performance. Risk is important since failure can harm the crew, but it is difficult to treat simply. Cost is not easy to estimate, but preliminary space system cost estimates are usually based on mass, which is better estimated than cost. Amass-based cost estimate, similar to ESM, would be a good single reporting metric. The paper defines and compares four mass-based cost estimates, Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM), Life Cycle Mass (LCM), and System Mass (SM). EM is traditional in life support and includes mass, volume, power, cooling and logistics. ESM is the specifically defined ALS metric, which adds crew time and possibly other cost factors to EM. LCM is a new metric, a mass-based estimate of LCC measured in mass units. SM includes only the factors of EM that are originally measured in mass, the hardware and logistics mass. All four mass-based metrics usually give similar comparisons. SM is by far the simplest to compute and easiest to explain.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Using Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Other Metrics to Supplement Equivalent System Mass (ESM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS)

The ALS project plan goals are reducing cost, improving performance, and achieving flight readiness. ALS selects projects to advance the mission readiness of low cost, high performance technologies. The role of metrics is to help select good projects and report progress. The Equivalent Mass (EM) of a system is the sum of the estimated mass of the hardware, of its required materials and spares, and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system needed to support the hardware in space. EM is the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support a system. EM is directly proportional to the launch cost.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2002

Design Rules for Life Support Systems

This paper considers some of the common assumptions and engineering rules of thumb used in life support system design. One general design rule is that the longer the mission, the more the life support system should use recycling and regenerable technologies. A more specific rule is that, if the system grows more than half the food, the food plants will supply all the oxygen needed for the crew life support. There are many such design rules that help in planning the analysis of life support systems and in checking results. These rules are typically if-then statements describing the results of steady-state, "back of the envelope," mass flow calculations. They are useful in identifying plausible candidate life support system designs and in rough allocations between resupply and resource recovery. Life support system designers should always review the design rules and make quick steady state calculations before doing detailed design and dynamic simulation. This paper develops the basis for the different assumptions and design rules and discusses how they should be used. We start top-down, with the highest level requirement to sustain human beings in a closed environment off Earth. We consider the crew needs for air, water, and food. We then discuss atmosphere leakage and recycling losses. The needs to support the crew and to make up losses define the fundamental life support system requirements. We consider the trade-offs between resupplying and recycling oxygen, water, and food. The specific choices between resupply and recycling are determined by mission duration, presence of in-situ resources, etc., and are defining parameters of life support system design.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2002

Nonlinear Dynamic Models in Advanced Life Support

To facilitate analysis, ALS systems are often assumed to be linear and time invariant, but they usually have important nonlinear and dynamic aspects. Nonlinear dynamic behavior can be caused by time varying inputs, changes in system parameters, nonlinear system functions, closed loop feedback delays, and limits on buffer storage or processing rates. Dynamic models are usually cataloged according to the number of state variables. The simplest dynamic models are linear, using only integration, multiplication, addition, and subtraction of the state variables. A general linear model with only two state variables can produce all the possible dynamic behavior of linear systems with many state variables, including stability, oscillation, or exponential growth and decay. Linear systems can be described using mathematical analysis. Nonlinear dynamics can be fully explored only by computer simulations of models. Unexpected behavior is produced by simple models having only two or three state variables with simple mathematical relations between them. Closed loop feedback delays are a major source of system instability. Exceeding limits on buffer storage or processing rates forces systems to change operating mode. Different equilibrium points may be reached from different initial conditions. Instead of one stable equilibrium point, the system may have several equilibrium points, oscillate at different frequencies, or even behave chaotically, depending on the system inputs and initial conditions. The frequency spectrum of an output oscillation may contain harmonics and the sums and differences of input frequencies, but it may also contain a stable limit cycle oscillation not related to input frequencies. We must investigate the nonlinear dynamic aspects of advanced life support systems to understand and counter undesirable behavior.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2002

Dynamic Modeling of ALS Systems

The purpose of dynamic modeling and simulation of Advanced Life Support (ALS) systems is to help design them. Static steady state systems analysis provides basic information and is necessary to guide dynamic modeling, but static analysis is not sufficient to design and compare systems. ALS systems must respond to external input variations and internal off-nominal behavior. Buffer sizing, resupply scheduling, failure response, and control system design are aspects of dynamic system design. We develop two dynamic mass flow models and use them in simulations to evaluate systems issues, optimize designs, and make system design trades. One model is of nitrogen leakage in the space station, the other is of a waste processor failure in a regenerative life support system. Most systems analyses are concerned with optimizing the cost/benefit of a system at its nominal steady-state operating point. ALS analysis must go beyond the static steady state to include dynamic system design. All life support systems exhibit behavior that varies over time. ALS systems must respond to equipment operating cycles, repair schedules, and occasional off-nominal behavior or malfunctions. Biological components, such as bioreactors, composters, and food plant growth chambers, usually have operating cycles or other complex time behavior. Buffer sizes, material stocks, and resupply rates determine dynamic system behavior and directly affect system mass and cost. Dynamic simulation is needed to avoid the extremes of costly over-design of buffers and material reserves or system failure due to insufficient buffers and lack of stored material.

Jones, Harry↗