Engineering topics

Jordan J Klovstad

Publications and source records attributed to Jordan J Klovstad.

6 records

NASA NTRS2018

Mega-Drivers to Inform NASA Space Technology Strategic Planning

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) has been developing a new Strategic Framework to guide investment prioritization and communication of STMD strategic goals to stakeholders. STMD’s analysis of global trends identified four overarching drivers which are anticipated to shape the needs of civilian space research for years to come. These Mega-Drivers form the foundation of the Strategic Framework. The Increasing Access Mega-Driver reflects the increase in the availability of launch options, more capable propulsion systems, access to planetary surfaces, and the introduction of new platforms to enable exploration, science, and commercial activities. Accelerating Pace of Discovery reflects the exploration of more remote and challenging destinations, drives increased demand for improved abilities to communicate and process large datasets. The Democratization of Space reflects the broadening participation in the space industry, from governments to private investors to citizens. Growing Utilization of Space reflects space market diversification and growth. This paper will further describe the observable trends that inform each of these Mega Drivers, as well as the interrelationships between them within STMD’s new Strategic Framework.

Melanie L Grande↗

NASA NTRS2018

Strategic Framework for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate

In October 2016, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began adopting a new strategic framework that focuses investment prioritization and communication on impacts, outcomes, and challenges. The structure of the framework has been modeled after one successfully pioneered by NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate over the past five years, incorporating lessons learned and changes where appropriate. The Framework is driven by two major factors: (a) dialogue with the community and (b) analysis of the overarching trends shaping the course of civilian space research. These factors are captured in the Framework as Mega-Drivers, which represent major axes of change within the space industry and are characterized by a collection of industry trends and projections. In response to these Mega-Drivers, STMD has developed its understanding of the vision for the future of civilian space relative to STMD space research, captured in five Strategic Thrusts that represent the major lines of investment within STMD’s portfolio. Within each of these Strategic Thrusts, multiple measurable, community-level goals have been established that STMD chooses to pursue as part of a joint effort across the community. STMD chose these goals based upon their potential impact, refers to them as Outcomes within the Framework. These outcomes are decomposed into the products and/or capabilities that will be delivered by STMD, represented in the framework as Technical Challenges. This paper will further describe the framework structure and the progress that has been in defining each of the above elements to date.

Kevin D Earle↗

NASA NTRS2018

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Paul D Friz↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cost Breakeven Analysis of Lunar In-Situ Propellant Production for Human Missions to the Moon and Mars

NASA is preparing to return humans to the lunar surface as a first step to a human exploration campaign of Mars. Both a sustained lunar campaign and a campaign of missions to Mars will require tens to hundreds of tonnes of propellant. Although this propellant could be delivered from Earth, an alternative approach is to use the potentially vast quantities of lunar ice to enable in-situ propellant production on the lunar surface. This study evaluates the cost breakeven for using lunar-derived propellants, as opposed to those delivered from Earth, in support of an extended human exploration campaign with both a multi-year presence on the Moon as well as multiple crewed missions to Mars. In so doing, the value of lunar propellant production is considered in the context of future exploration priorities, addressing the question: over what range of human missions to the lunar surface and Mars does in-situ propellant production trade favorably with propellant delivery from Earth on the basis of cost? The results of this analysis show that the magnitude and duration of the lunar campaign, more so than the Mars campaign, drive the breakeven and that without long lifetime ISRU systems, with greater than 5 years of autonomous operation before replacement, the demand in cis-lunar space for a Mars campaign favors propellant delivery from Earth.

Christopher A Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Trajectory, Habitat, and Logistics Analysis and Trade Study for Human Mars Missions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures and propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS life cycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Mars↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Crewed Mars Mission Analysis, Part II: The Trajectory Strikes Back

Crewed missions to Mars present a challenging problem involving strong interactions between a variety of spacecraft systems. Design and architecture decisions made by one system can have powerful implications for another. Siloed subsystem development and optimization efforts are unlikely to generate optimal results for the integrated system and may lead to counterproductive investments at the mission and system level. Mismatched assumptions between different subsystems can also negatively impact the final result. Integrated systems analysis, trade studies, and sensitivity analysis are a critical element of successful Mars mission design. Previous work examined the linkages between Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) loop closure, food water content, spares Probability of Sufficiency (POS), and other factors by performing an integrated mass and cost assessment of a variety of Mars habitat and transportation system designs. This paper expands upon that work by evaluating the impact of mission duration, trajectory, and propulsion technology alongside key habitat variables. Transportation system and trajectory design decisions have enormous impacts on overall system mass, and the impacts of those decisions are themselves sensitive to the mass of the habitat that is being transported. This paper examines a variety of mission cases and evaluates total departure mass for each case. An estimate of relative costs for specific cases is also provided. The results are discussed, with an emphasis on the sensitivity of mass, cost, and other figures of merit to key parameters. Interactions and dependencies between various decisions, particularly those that relate to technology investments, are also highlighted. Overall, the various elements, systems, and subsystems required to support human spaceflight should not be optimized and evaluated in isolation, but instead should be analyzed as part of an integrated system. This paper demonstrates how integrated analysis can improve system understanding and lead to more optimal and effective crewed exploration systems.

Human Spaceflight↗