Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NASA standard”

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 181 records · Page 10

The New NASA-STD-4005 and NASA-HDBK-4006, Essentials for Direct-Drive Solar Electric Propulsion

High voltage solar arrays are necessary for direct-drive solar electric propulsion, which has many advantages, including simplicity and high efficiency. Even when direct-drive is not used, the use of high voltage solar arrays leads to power transmission and conversion efficiencies in electric propulsion Power Management and Distribution. Nevertheless, high voltage solar arrays may lead to temporary power disruptions, through the so-called primary electrostatic discharges, and may permanently damage arrays, through the so-called permanent sustained discharges between array strings. Design guidance is needed to prevent these solar array discharges, and to prevent high power drains through coupling between the electric propulsion devices and the high voltage solar arrays. While most electric propulsion systems may operate outside of Low Earth Orbit, the plasmas produced by their thrusters may interact with the high voltage solar arrays in many ways similarly to Low Earth Orbit plasmas. A brief description of previous experiences with high voltage electric propulsion systems will be given in this paper. There are two new official NASA documents available free through the NASA Standards website to help in designing and testing high voltage solar arrays for electric propulsion. They are NASA-STD-4005, the Low Earth Orbit Spacecraft Charging Design Standard, and NASA-HDBK-4006, the Low Earth Orbit Spacecraft Charging Design Handbook. Taken together, they can both educate the high voltage array designer in the engineering and science of spacecraft charging in the presence of dense plasmas and provide techniques for designing and testing high voltage solar arrays to prevent electrical discharges and power drains.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗

NASA Planetary Protection Program Overview and Update

NASA has an integrated planetary protection strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guide-lines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. The Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance, which in-cludes NASA’s Oÿce of Planetary Protection, depends on these activities to support NASA’s missions in the assurance of crew safety and mission success while protecting the public and planetary environment from harmful contamination. This report will detail the overall planetary protection policy development perspective to sup-port NASA’s upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include crewed Mars and sam-ple return missions. NASA continues to evolve its strategies, policies, and standards. NASA’s support in the COSPAR workshop series on Refining Planetary Protection Requirements for Crewed Missions to Mars have resulted in a NASA interim directive and paved the way for the development of NASA planetary protection roadmaps. These Agency level roadmaps address technology development and testing required to fill knowledge gaps for developing responsive policy guidelines and quantitative technical standards. In addition to workshops and tech-nology management strategies, NASA is also leveraging the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection to serve as a source of advice on planetary protection measures. Finally, the report will include how the Oÿce of Safety and Mission Assurance is incorporating planetary protection into existing and new multi-agency partnerships.

Frank Groen↗

An Eddy Current Case Study using NASA’s Transfer Function and Limited-Sample Probability of Detection Guidebooks

Probability of detection (POD) requirements for NASA fracture-critical human-rated systems can be met by (1) claiming ‘similarity’ to NASA Standard Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) flaw sizes or (2) by inspector-specific POD demonstration, known as NASA Special NDE. Standard NDE flaw sizes are intended to represent the detection capability of most qualified inspectors, and were primarily based on POD studies in the development of the Space Shuttle Program Orbiter fracture control plan. However, these Standard NDE flaw sizes were based on fatigue cracks in flat panels of one material alloy over a limited range of panel thicknesses. While the POD study was comprehensive, the inspection conditions are relatively narrow. An evaluation of similarity between the Standard NDE POD study and flight component conditions is required to apply Standard NDE to specific flight component inspections. A similarity evaluation may include differences in materials, surface finish, component geometry (e.g., curvature, corners, welds), and inspection access. Similarity is typically based on a qualitative engineering evaluation. Recently, NASA published a quantitative methodology to assess similarity. If similarity is not supported by test and analysis, then the methodology provides a transfer function of flaw size for Special NDE POD demonstration. NASA recommends that Special POD demonstrations use flaws that are flight-like or more difficult to detect than flight component flaws, which are commonly induced fatigue cracks. Often, it is not feasible to induce fatigue cracks in flight component geometry, and therefore, a simpler representative geometry is used, commonly a flat panel, for POD demonstration. Inducing cracks in simple geometry specimens can be time-consuming and expensive, and thus, minimizing the number of flawed specimens is desired. Traditionally, NASA Special NDE demonstration was limited to MIL-HDBK-1823A methods or the binomial point-estimate method (PEM), commonly known as 29/29. Recently, NASA published a limited-sample POD (LS-POD) methodology for signal-response NDE techniques (e.g., eddy current) that provides POD demonstration with fewer specimens than previous approaches. LS-POD suggests a minimum of 10 flawed specimens, compared to 29 in the PEM and the suggested minimum of 40 from MIL-HDBK-1823A. The methodology also includes new guidance on evaluating the probability of false calls. In this presentation, these new transfer function and LS-POD methodologies are described and illustrated through an eddy current detection capability of far-side flaws on thin welded panels. A geometry-based transfer function is developed using electro-discharge machined (EDM) notches in flight component and simple geometry to estimate the Special NDE flaw size that is representative of the critical initial flaw size required by the fracture analysis. Then, fatigue cracks are induced in simple flat panels of the transferred flaw size, and the LS-POD methodology is used for Special NDE demonstration.

P. A. Parker↗

Evaluation of Aerobic Capacity in Relation to Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

INTRODUCTION Astronauts will need to be physically prepared to successfully execute strenuous Extravehicular Activities (EVA)on the Lunar surface. Compared to Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives and potential contingency scenarios. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial gravity (g)surface EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity EVA analog data. This investigation aims to characterize metabolic demands from Lunar analog EVA simulations in relation to the current NASA standards for celestial partial-g aerobic fitness(aerobic capacity (VO2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). METHODS To evaluate current Lunar EVA aerobic fitness requirements, a pilot study was performed to characterize metabolic ratesduring6 hour simulated EVAs. The EVAs were performed in pressurized MKIII (n=2male) and xEMU (n=3 female) spacesuits offloaded to 1/6 g in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System. VO2pk was assessed via graded exercise testing on acycle ergometer and physical workload was quantified as percent ofVO2pk. RESULTS Four out of five subjects did not meet the current NASA celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (3 xEMU, 1MKIII;35.1±0.9 ml/kg/min). During simulated EVAs, subjects (xEMU: 35±1ml/kg/min; MKIII: 44±10ml/kg/min) worked at an average 36%VO2pk(xEMU) and 31% VO2pk(MKIII). For xEMU subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 2km treadmill traverse(0% grade: 47.2%VO2pk[max 69.1%]), object relocation (45.2%VO2pk[max 60.5%]), and 1.5km traverse (0% grade: 45%VO2pk[max 59.7%]). For MKIII subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 0.5km treadmill traverse (30% grade: 35.4% VO2pk[max 45.5%]), object relocation(31% VO2pk[max 40.8%]), and treadmill traverse (0% grade: 29.9%VO2pk[max 45.9%]). CONCLUSIONS While average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within sustainable work ranges of30–40% VO2pkand life support system limitations, task-specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. As few subjects met the standard, more data is needed to adequately evaluate the NASA 3001 standard.

N C Strock↗

Survey of standards applicable to a database management system

Industry, government, and NASA standards, and the status of standardization activities of standards setting organizations applicable to the design, implementation and operation of a data base management system for space related applications are identified. The applicability of the standards to a general purpose, multimission data base management system is addressed.

Urena, J. L.↗

Discriminating performance parameters for 50 amp-hour and 60 amp-hour nickel-cadmium plates and battery cells

This is a follow-up of studies of the NASA standard 50 AH cell presented at the NASA battery workshop each of the last two years. This is a dynamic study. Data trends continue to be developed and analyzed for their utility in judging NiCd performance. The trends and parameters presented here may bear relevance to many designs of conventional NiCd batteries, not just the 50 AH and 60 AH sizes.

Toft, Mark R.↗

Implications of Dynamic Pressure Transducer Mounting Variations on Measurements in Pyrotechnic Test Apparatus

Accurate dynamic pressure measurements are often difficult to make within small pyrotechnic devices, and transducer mounting difficulties can cause data anomalies that lead to erroneous conclusions. Delayed initial pressure response followed by data ringing has been observed when using miniaturized pressure transducer mounting adapters required to interface transducers to small test chambers. This delayed pressure response and ringing, combined with a high data acquisition rate, has complicated data analysis. This paper compares the output signal characteristics from different pressure transducer mounting options, where the passage distance from the transducer face to the pyrotechnic chamber is varied in length and diameter. By analyzing the data and understating the associated system dynamics, a more realistic understanding of the actual dynamic pressure variations is achieved. Three pressure transducer mounting configurations (elongated, standard, and face/flush mount) were simultaneously tested using NASA standard initiators in closed volume pressure bombs. This paper also presents results of these pressure transducer mounting configurations as a result of a larger NASA Engineering and Safety Center pyrovalve test project. Results from these tests indicate the improved performance of using face/flush mounted pressure transducers in this application. This type of mounting improved initial pressure measurement response time by approximately 19 s over standard adapter mounting, eliminating most of the lag time; provided a near step-function type initial pressure increase; and greatly reduced data ringing in high data acquisition rate systems. The paper goes on to discuss other issues associated with the firing and instrumentation that are important for the tester to understand.

Dibbern, Andreas↗

Standards of conduct for NASA special government employees

NASA regulations prescribing standards of conduct for all NASA employees, including special government employees, were approved by the Civil Service Commission on September 19, 1967, and by the Administrator on October 12, 1967, and were published in the Federal Register (32 F.R. 14648-14659) on October 21, 1967. The standards of conduct regulations are issued under Executive Order 11222 of May 11, 1965 (30 F.R. 6469, 3 C.F.R. 1965 Supp.; 5 C.F.R. 735.104), and Chapter 735 of the Federal Personnel Manual. For the convenience of special government employees, those portions of the NASA standards of conduct regulations which are applicable only to special government employees, Part F and Appendixes E, F, and G, are reissued in this handbook. Except for references to 'parts,' 'subparts,' 'sections,' etc., the text is identical to that published in the Federal Register.

Source record↗

NASA/NBS (National Aeronautics and Space Administration/National Bureau of Standards) standard reference model for telerobot control system architecture (NASREM)

The document describes the NASA Standard Reference Model (NASREM) Architecture for the Space Station Telerobot Control System. It defines the functional requirements and high level specifications of the control system for the NASA space Station document for the functional specification, and a guideline for the development of the control system architecture, of the 10C Flight Telerobot Servicer. The NASREM telerobot control system architecture defines a set of standard modules and interfaces which facilitates software design, development, validation, and test, and make possible the integration of telerobotics software from a wide variety of sources. Standard interfaces also provide the software hooks necessary to incrementally upgrade future Flight Telerobot Systems as new capabilities develop in computer science, robotics, and autonomous system control.

Albus, James S.↗

Design and technical support for development of a molded fabric space suit joint

NASA Ames Research Center has under design a new joint or element for use in a space suit. The design concept involves molding a fabric to a geometry developed at Ames. Unusual characteristics of this design include the need to produce a fabric molding draw ratio on the order of thirty percent circumferentially on the surface. Previous work done at NASA on molded fabric joints has shown that standard, NASA qualified polyester fabrics as are currently available in the textile industry for use in suits have a maximum of about fifteen percent draw ratio. NASA has done the fundamental design for a prototype joint and of a mold which would impart the correct shape to the fabric support layer of the joint. NASA also has the capability to test a finished product for suitability and reliability. Responsibilities resting with Georgia Tech in the design effort for this project are textile related, namely fiber selection, fabric design to achieve the properties of the objective design, and determining production means and sources for the fabrics. The project goals are to produce a prototype joint using the NASA design for evaluation of effectiveness by NASA, and to establish the sources and specifications which would allow reliable and repeatable production of the joint.

Olson, L. Howard↗

NASA-STD-4005 and NASA-HDBK-4006, LEO Spacecraft Solar Array Charging Design Standard

Two new NASA Standards are now official. They are the NASA LEO Spacecraft Charging Design Standard (NASA-STD-4005) and the NASA LEO Spacecraft Charging Design Handbook (NASA-HDBK-4006). They give the background and techniques for controlling solar array-induced charging and arcing in LEO. In this paper, a brief overview of the new standards is given, along with where they can be obtained and who should be using them.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗

The effect of cell design and test criteria on the series/parallel performance of nickel cadmium cells and batteries

Three batteries were operated in parallel from a common bus during charge and discharge. SMM utilized NASA Standard 20AH cells and batteries, and LANDSAT-D NASA 50AH cells and batteries of a similar design. Each battery consisted of 22 series connected cells providing the nominal 28V bus. The three batteries were charged in parallel using the voltage limit/current taper mode wherein the voltage limit was temperature compensated. Discharge occurred on the demand of the spacecraft instruments and electronics. Both flights were planned for three to five year missions. The series/parallel configuration of cells and batteries for the 3-5 yr mission required a well controlled product with built-in reliability and uniformity. Examples of how component, cell and battery selection methods affect the uniformity of the series/parallel operation of the batteries both in testing and in flight are given.

Halpert, G.↗

Static tests of the propulsion system

Advanced, highly-loaded, high-speed propellers, called propfans, are promising to revolutionize the transport aircraft industry by offering a 15- to 30-percent fuel savings over the most advanced turbofans without sacrificing passenger comfort or violating community noise standards. NASA Lewis Research Center and industry have been working jointly to develop the needed propfan technology. The NASA-funded Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) Program represents a key element of this joint program. In PTA, Lockheed-Georgia, working in concert with Hamilton Standard, Rohr Industries, Gulfstream Aerospace, and Allison, is developing a propfan propulsion system which will be mounted on the left wing of a modified Gulfstream GII aircraft and flight tested to verify the in-flight characteristics of a 9-foot diameter, single-rotation propfan. The propfan, called SR-7L, was designed and fabricated by Hamilton Standard under a separate NASA contract. Prior to flight testing, the PTA propulsion system was static tested at the Rohr Brown Field facility. In this test, propulsion system operational capability was verified and data was obtained on propfan structural response, system acoustic characteristics, and system performance. This paper reports on the results of the static tests.

Withers, C. C.↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Development of a Guidebook in Support of the NASA R&M Standard

This paper describes a guidebook currently in development to support the application of the NASA R&M Standard [1]. NASA-STD-8729.1A identifies the objectives and strategies for how to develop a system or design that is reliable and maintainable. Rather than requiring a checklist of mandatory tasks, such as specific design or Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) analyses, the standard explains objectives that need to be accomplished, and how to accomplish the objectives in the form of strategies. Currently, the standard presents the hierarchy without defining or explaining elements, or how to use the hierarchy efficiently. This is where this accompanying guideline comes into play; the guideline helps clarify through discussion and examples the standard in more detail, and how to apply it in real world situations that engineers face every day.

DiVenti, Anthony↗

NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Standards Process Experiences

NASA has impaneled several internal working groups to provide recommendations to NASA management on ways to evolve and improve Earth Science Data Systems. One of these working groups is the Standards Process Group (SPC). The SPG is drawn from NASA-funded Earth Science Data Systems stakeholders, and it directs a process of community review and evaluation of proposed NASA standards. The working group's goal is to promote interoperability and interuse of NASA Earth Science data through broader use of standards that have proven implementation and operational benefit to NASA Earth science by facilitating the NASA management endorsement of proposed standards. The SPC now has two years of experience with this approach to identification of standards. We will discuss real examples of the different types of candidate standards that have been proposed to NASA's Standards Process Group such as OPeNDAP's Data Access Protocol, the Hierarchical Data Format, and Open Geospatial Consortium's Web Map Server. Each of the three types of proposals requires a different sort of criteria for understanding the broad concepts of "proven implementation" and "operational benefit" in the context of NASA Earth Science data systems. We will discuss how our Standards Process has evolved with our experiences with the three candidate standards.

Ullman, Richard E.↗

Final Report of the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Agile Benchmarking Team

To ensure that the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) community remains in a position to perform reliable Software Assurance (SA) on NASAs critical software (SW) systems with the software industry rapidly transitioning from waterfall to Agile processes, Terry Wilcutt, Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) established the Agile Benchmarking Team (ABT). The Team's tasks were: 1. Research background literature on current Agile processes, 2. Perform benchmark activities with other organizations that are involved in software Agile processes to determine best practices, 3. Collect information on Agile-developed systems to enable improvements to the current NASA standards and processes to enhance their ability to perform reliable software assurance on NASA Agile-developed systems, 4. Suggest additional guidance and recommendations for updates to those standards and processes, as needed. The ABT's findings and recommendations for software management, engineering and software assurance are addressed herein.

Software Assurance↗

The standard 20 AH battery

The modular power system, which is the first intended use for the NASA standard battery, is basically a four foot by four foot by eighteen inch box which can handle a complement of three 20 ampere hour batteries or later on the intended use is for three 50 ampere hour batteries to be the full complement. The system is designed to be used as a plug on component on a multi mission modular spacecraft. It has as a design point a basically 1250 watt orbital average load. The way it breaks up in a near earth orbit it would be somewhere around 1,000 watts for everything except 10 minutes, and during any 10 minute period it may go up to a peak of 3,000 watt load. Features of the battery reviewed include criteria to store electrical energy, the battery package, the covers and cases, and electrolytes. The capacities expected are 90 percent, the average cell capacity for 24 C, 90 percent of the actual battery capacity of 19 C, and 85 percent of the actual 25 degree battery capacity at zero discharge voltage for 50 percent DOD new battery is in the vicinity expected or predicted of 26.4 volts.

Zollner, M. T.↗