SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Programmatic”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2020

Is Structured Agile an Oxymoron? Tales from Implementing and Executing Agile in a US Government Environment

To paraphrase a famous quote, "No plan survives contact with the reality." Software (SW) development is often a classic example of this: whatever the plan was for a particular development, it often does not survive contact with technical realities, budget realities, program realities and schedule realities. Traditionally, SW development has followed a waterfall methodology with requirements being rigorously specified before the design, which was completed before the coding and unit testing started, which were in turn finished before validation and verification started. This model of SW engineering derives much from the HW engineering of large systems, and has been the standard methodology used in US government software acquisitions and systems for decades, with highly variable results. US Government SW requirements are built around Waterfall concepts, which assume that the plan will survive contact with reality, or at least that modifications to the plan are relatively small, and relatively few.Because of the inefficiencies and difficulties inherent in Waterfall, the commercial SW world started using a different SW development methodology called Agile more than 20 years ago. Agile believes that a plan should evolve and learn rapidly in response to the realities encountered. At its core, there are a few key elements of Agile:- A small team of people which is highly flexible and adaptive. The team collaborates and interoperates through sophisticated development architectures and release environments- An iterative, incremental development and release approach which is based upon the concept that knowledge comes from experience within the team, and that the team makes decisions based upon what it knows- A team culture which prizes transparency, inspection and adaptation. These values are necessary so that the team experience and decision making is transparent and responsive to the realities encountered during development and testingSo, how to use Agile in a US Government environment? GMSEC (Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center) develops satellite ground system software for NASA and other US Government agencies. The SW developed by the team contains a large code base of many applications used within satellite mission operations centers. It spans the full gamut of SW development types: from SW which is in a classic maintenance and sustainment mode, to new developments with a fairly well understood scope and approach, to new developments whose scope and approach are quite unclear and which require significant research and prototyping. Team members move between all of these different types of SW development. Waterfall was inadequate to the programmatic and technical needs of the team, as well as the various types of SW development being done. The software plan was not surviving contact with the technical and programmatic realities experienced by the team. To address this, the team started a small pilot project in 2016 to test the use of Agile within a small subset of the team for a new web services application. In early 2018, the use of Agile was expanded to the whole team and all the software, but we had to fulfill the NASA SW development requirements. And we needed to do this while still remaining true to the key Agile elements of transparency, inspection and adaption. In order to do this, the team worked very closely with the Software Process Improvement (SPI) team at NASA Goddard, as well as NASA engineering manageme

Beech, Theresa W.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Overview of the Main Propulsion System for a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Demonstrator

A demonstration of a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) engine has not been conducted in over 50 years. Several tests were conducted during the NERVA program but no NTP engine was ever flown in space. In the last several years there has been a considerable amount of conceptual design work on NTP engines conducted. With the prospect of human Mars missions in the 2030’s there has been a renewed interest in NTP engines. A concept design study was conducted with the intent to design 2 flight demonstrator vehicles that would buy down programmatic and technical risks associated with launching and operating nuclear reactors in space. The intent of the first demonstrator mission would be to employ a simplified NTP engine and buy down programmatic risks whereas the second demonstrator would buy down technical risks with a NTP engine designed to be similar to an operational NTP model. The results of the study showed that a simplified NTP engine demonstrator could be feasibly built and flown in the near term with mostly high TRL, commercial off-the-shelf components.

Simpson, S. P.↗

NASA NTRS2018

An “EPIIC” Vision to Evolve Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration with Broad Impact for How NASA Executes Complex Projects

Evolving Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration (EPIIC) is a vision defined to transform the way projects manage information to support real-time decisions, capture best practices and lessons learned, perform assessments, and manage risk across a portfolio of projects. The foundational project management needs for data and information will be revolutionized through innovations on how we manage and access that data, implement configuration control, and certify compliance. The embedded intelligence of new interactive data interfaces integrate technical and programmatic data such that near real time analytics can be accomplished to more efficiently and accurately complete systems engineering and project management tasks. The system-wide data analytics that are integrated into customized data interfaces allows the growing team of engineers and managers required to develop and implement major NASA missions the ability to access authoritative source(s) of system information while greatly reducing the labor required to complete system assessments. This would allow, for example, much of what is accomplished in a scheduled design review to take place as needed, between any team members, at any time. An intelligent data interface that rigorously integrates systems engineering and project management information in near real time can provide substantially greater insight for systems engineers, project managers, and the large diverse teams required to complete a complex project. System engineers, programmatic personnel (those who focus on cost, schedule, and risk), the technical engineering disciplines, and project management can realize immediate benefit from the shared vision described herein. Implementation of the vision also enables significant improvements in the performance of the engineered system being developed.

Moreland, Robert J.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Program Options to Explore Ocean Worlds

Including Earth, roughly a dozen water ocean worlds exist in the solar system: the relict worlds Ceres and Mars, vast oceans inside most of the large Jovian and Saturnian icy moons, and Kuiper Belt Objects like Triton, Charon, and Pluto whose geologies are dominated by water and ammonia. Key pieces of the ocean-world science puzzle – which when completed may reveal whether life is widespread in the cosmos, why it exists where it does, and how it originates – are distributed among them. The eventual exploration of all these worlds will yield humanity’s total tangible knowledge about life in the universe, essentially forever. Thus, their exploration has existential significance for humanity’s self-regard, and indeed perhaps of our place in the natural scheme. The matter of planning how to pursue such a difficult and unprecedented exploration opportunity is therefore historic. The technical challenges are formidable, far harder than at Mars: missions to the Jovian and Saturnian ocean worlds are severely power-limited; trip times can be as much as a half decade and decade, respectively. And the science targets are global-scale oceans beneath kilometers of cryogenic ice. Reaching and exploring them would be a multi-generational undertaking, so again it is essential to plan and prepare. Today, we lack the instrumentation, subsystems, and remote operational-intelligence technologies needed to build and use exploration avatars as good as what we can envision needing. Each ocean world holds a piece of the puzzle, but the three priority targets are Europa at Jupiter, and Enceladus and Titan at Saturn. As with the systematic exploration of Mars, exploring these diverse worlds poses a complex technical and programmatic challenge – a strategic challenge – that needs to be designed and managed if each generation is to see its work bear fruit, and if the space science community is to make most effective use of the public money devoted to the quest. Strategic programs benefit from coherence. In only 15 years, the Mars Exploration Program (MEP) has transformed humanity’s view of Mars as a once and future habitable place, a world quite possibly holding relict evidence of life. Finding such evidence, we would study it to know if that life shared an origin common with Earth life. However, life in the ocean worlds could not have shared our origin, so exploring them opens another level in our quest to understand life in the universe: not only to places with vast salt-water seas known to contain organics and hydrothermal seafloors active today, but to places where anything alive cannot be related to us. MEP’s success – from its presence in the public consciousness to its rewriting of planetary habitability – make it an obvious template and source of lessons learned for a viable ocean worlds exploration program (OWEP). Six attributes of the MEP are analyzed for application to a potential OWEP. From this, five hypothetical programmatic scenarios are compared to the default case, and conclusions drawn. A coherent OWEP should have several parts: first, dedicated continuous investment in enabling technologies; and second, two directed-purpose, medium-class (~$1B) missions per decade that conduct pivotal investigations on a documented roadmap. Science could start in 2035, informing development of decadal flagship missions after Europa Clipper, to the places revealed to hold the most promise. The fastest pace of scientific discoveries would require access to high-performance propulsion infrastructure, e.g., the Space Launch System, Falcon Heavy, and high-power in-space solar electric propulsion, all capable of halving trip time. Not including these boosts, such a program would cost about a half-billion dollars more per year than NASA’s existing mission portfolio; the program architecture funded today cannot deliver a strategic OWEP while also sustaining balance among other solar system exploration priorities and opportunities.

Naderi, F.↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: Continuing a Record of Exploration from Mars Orbit

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has been on station in its low altitude, sun-synchronous, primary science orbit since September 2006 performing both scientific and Mars programmatic support functions. The spacecraft is a very capable remote sensing science platform carrying six science payloads supporting seven investigations and a UHF telecommunications radio (Electra) for surface relay. Developed to support a mix of nadir mapping and targeted, highresolution surface observations, the spacecraft’s powerful telecommunications and command & data handling (C&DH) subsystems communicate an average of 16 hours a day with the Deep Space Network (DSN). To date, more than 300 TB of scientific data has been returned to Earth. All of the original science payloads are active with standard and new observing modes contributing to the advancement of Mars science through peer-reviewed paper publications and the timely dissemination of their data to the science community as a whole. Results from the science teams have revealed an amazing diversity of ancient aqueous environments and ongoing surface change is evident through gully formation, avalanches, and cratering. Extending the MRO-MGS climate record to a decade of Mars years is contributing to a better understanding of current atmospheric and polar processes. In addition to its fundamental scientific objectives, MRO is a critical element of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program (MEP) providing needed infrastructure support for landed and future missions. Using its Electra telecommunications payload, MRO provides landers and rovers critical event coverage during their entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phases and UHF relay support once they are on the Martian surface. MRO’s high-resolution imagers are used to scout potential landing sites and certify safe zones for landing. As MRO begins its Fourth Extended Mission, the spacecraft remains fully capable of carrying out an ambitious science observing plan and the programmatic tasks assigned to it. In addition to highlighting recent discoveries of the mission, this paper describes recent challenges the spacecraft engineers have faced in flight and the plans for extending spacecraft life well into the 2020’s.

Tamppari, Leslie K.↗

NASA NTRS2018

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: 2018 Status

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) continues its dual-mode mission of scientific exploration and programmatic support. Now in its 13th year of flight (and its 12th year in its low-altitude, sun-synchronous orbit around Mars), the spacecraft continues in its normal flight mode and its science instruments continue to acquire a treasure trove of data which is being used to study the Martian environment (surface, sub-surface, and atmosphere). To date (July 2018), more than 333 TB of scientific data have been returned to Earth. Building onto the 2017 IAC paper: “The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: Continuing a Record of Exploration from Mars Orbit,” [1] this paper provides a 2018 status update on the MRO Mission. A signature event since the 2017 writing is the onset and evolution of a planet-encircling dust event (PEDE), the first such event since 2007. Additional recent science highlights for MRO include the discovery of mid-latitude ice cliffs, polar cap characterization, daily global mapping of the 2018 PEDE dust activity and the atmospheric thermal response, further characterization of the tantalizing recurring slope lineae (RSL), and continued detection of surface changes. Programmatically, UHF relay support for the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover Curiosity and the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) rover Opportunity continues at a pace that provides the engineers and scientists operating those surface vehicles timely information to support their mission planning and science analysis. Most of the landing site characterization requests for the NASA Mars 2020 rover and the ESA ExoMars Rover/Surface Platform (RSP) missions have been completed, with final acquisitions delayed due to the obscuring dust haze from the current PEDE. In parallel, the flight team has faced new engineering challenges as the spacecraft has aged. The team has developed and is implementing actions that are aimed at stretching spacecraft battery life. A new all-stellar capability using the spacecraft’s star trackers now allows for normal spacecraft operations without IMUs. In addition to its current relay duties, MRO will be synchronized to provide critical communications support for the InSight Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) event on November 26, 2018, and will be readied to support InSight’s critical commissioning phase with UHF relay support and environmental characterization. A new split-pass relay capability has been developed which will allow MRO to relay with two surface vehicles in “close proximity” on the same overflight, i.e. the InSight lander and the Curiosity rover. Extended for another year of operations by NASA, this paper will highlight recent scientific progress and describe actions that will extend MRO’s life well into the 2020’s as a key element of the Mars Exploration Program.

Zurek, Richard W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tours of High-containment and Pristine Facilities in Support of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Definition Studies

During 2019 and 2020, the NASA Tiger Team RAMA (acronym of the authors) toured several high-containment biosafety laboratories and pristine space-mission facilities worldwide to better understand their practices, capabilities, and lessons-learned to aid in planning a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) in support of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The team also included tours of a manufacturer of mobile and modular high-containment facilities as well as manufacturers of isolators and gloveboxes. In addition, the team visited the European Space Agency (ESA)ultraclean and sterile ISO 3 / airborne molecular contamination -9 (AMC-9) isolator line to clean and assemble the most critical hardware for ESA’s ExoMars Mars Lander System, and researchers developing a novel double-walled isolator (DWI) and robotic handling techniques in support of an MSR SRF. The RAMA team visits covered several construction modalities for an MSR SRF: (1) a new traditional fixed facility; (2) use of an existing fixed Biosafety Level 4(BSL-4) facility; (3) a novel modular BSL-4 approach; and (4) a hybrid combination of fixed, modular, and existing facilities. A new fixed facility approach can be tailored to MSR’s needs and is the approach used by all U.S. BSL-4 laboratories constructed to date. However, this approach could be the most expensive modality, take the longest to implement (8-12 years), and have significant programmatic risk of delay. The utilization of an existing BSL-4 facility may be possible depending on the final contamination control and science requirements for the MSR SRF. Due to the internal dimensions of the labs visited and facility structural requirements, it is unlikely that any modification can be made to the facility to meet cleanliness requirements. Furthermore, due to possible construction delays, possible capacity issues, and potential cross contamination vectors from in-house select agents, there may also be significant programmatic risks for sharing an existing facility. Another approach is building a contemporary modular facility. This is a novel approach that has recently been used for a BSL-3/3Ag facilities. The modular elements would be installed in a traditional building or shell structure. A modular facility has many advantages over a traditional fixed facility with lower costs, shorter design/construction/ commissioning schedule, and flexibility for easier retrofits and future expansion. Lastly, a hybrid approach of combining the use of either: (1) a modular facility inside a new fixed facility or (2) a modular and/or fixed BSL-4 annex in conjunction with an existing BSL-4 space should be considered. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the facility could leverage the strengths of other approaches. Beyond facility construction approaches, the RAMA team investigated technologies and techniques for isolating and handling Martian samples in pristine environments. For example, ESA has been studying and developing a DWI breadboard along with other sample-handling technologies. The research and development investment for clean, remote manipulation and robotics at the start of the facility design phase would be beneficial to the SRF. Additionally, under-standing the lessons learned from Thales Alenia Space during the construction and operation of the most advanced state-of-the-art precision cleaning, sterilization, and assembly glovebox isolators ever developed for spacecraft hardware are also critical for the SRF. The RAMA team lays out a summary of the 18 facilities toured, and includes 43 observations,18 findings, and 22 areas of possible follow-up that the RAMA team and others could pursue to enable further findings. The observations and findings illustrate that constructing an MSR SRF would combine the complexity of both high-containment and pristine facilities, and merging these technologies would be challenging, but achievable.

Mars Sample Return↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tailoring Early Concept Maturity Levels for Small Satellite Missions

The Concept Maturity Level (CML) framework has gained widespread acceptance as a process to assess mission concept maturity, particularly for early mission concepts in the formulation phase. Popularized by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory almost 15 years ago to evaluate large NASA science mission concepts, the CML method offers wide-ranging programmatic and technical evaluation criteria to assess and measure the progress of mission concepts at all stages of maturity. It also provides a useful tool to facilitate stakeholder relationships through effective engagement, interaction, and communication. The CML approach is modeled largely after the widespread Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, a measure of how new technology progresses from early concept through to being operational at the mission flight system level. Tailoring the CML framework for small satellites allows for more relevant technical and programmatic evaluations for these missions. Given the diversity of small satellite mission objectives, cost constraints, complexity, and risk tolerance, this modified CML framework enables study teams and stakeholders to determine the appropriate CML fidelity to implement based upon the opportunity and strategic investment approach. A decision process flow method is proposed to guide teams through the logic of determining what CML fidelity to implement in evaluating small satellite mission concepts. The goal is to provide enhanced stakeholder engagement such that CML assessments are clearly articulated and understood early in the design study. This would allow for more appropriate application of CML methodology by study teams developing University led missions, technology demonstrations, commercial constellations, and more complex planetary science missions.

Concept Maturity Level↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Environment HEPA Filter Testing for Lunar Dust Removal Capability

Lunar dust is an abrasive regolith that can cause critical damage to hardware and crew. Its morphology and chemical makeup differs from typical earth dust due to space weathering effects. Current space missions require extensive air filtration of lunar dust to ensure mission success; as such filtration testing is paramount in verifying the dust-removal capabilities of the system. Previous testing at NASA GRC consisted of two stages: testing a flat high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) media sheet at various pressure ranges (Stage 1) and testing a pleated HEPA filter at different humidity and dust levels (Stage 2). This testing was done to buy-down risk when testing the flight-qualification HEPA filter for the proposed Stage 3 test. Stage 3 testing used a flight-ready HEPA filter to measure its performance characteristics to verify programmatic requirements. This included measuring lunar dust loading versus pressure drop performance and establishing a maximum capacity based on the allowable pressure drop, determining the HEPA filter efficiency utilizing two separate methodologies, and assessing if the lunar dust caused the HEPA filter to experience any damage. Additionally, dust removal from the HEPA filter was performed using a vacuum to ascertain if the filter life can be prolonged. These test results will aid the program in verifying programmatic requirements and ensuring risk buydown before this HEPA filter takes flight.

HEPA↗

NASA NTRS2023

Identifying and Closing Medical Capability Gaps for Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

BACKGROUND: Features of human space missions beyond low Earth orbit such as increasing distance from Earth, lack of real-time communication, and limited or no evacuation or resupply capability are expected to drive an increase in medical risk and require crews to operate in an increasingly autonomous fashion. A diverse set of stakeholders at NASA are seeking to fund the development of concepts of operations, medical requirements, and medical capabilities for such missions. However, a systematic approach to identification of current medical capability gaps and a strategic framework to gap closure is needed. OVERVIEW: The Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) has developed a list of nine high-level medical capability gaps and associated activities required for gap closure. The list was derived based on inputs from subject matter experts at NASA including flight surgeons, other clinical providers, as well as operational and research communities regarding medical capabilities required to support human missions to the Moon and the Mars surface. Responses were reviewed and distilled to identify common themes across capabilities. To ensure alignment with established human system risks, the gap list was further refined based on inputs from NASA’s Human System Risk Board. Relevant medical gap closure activities outside of those funded by the XMIPT were identified through solicitation of inputs from Elements of NASA’s Human Research Program (particularly Exploration Medical Capability), the broader medical operations community, and other stakeholders. This medical capability gap list is reviewed and updated regularly as new information becomes available or new stakeholders are identified. DISCUSSION: The medical capability gap list has matured to include a large group of NASA stakeholders and development activities. This has enabled articulation of priorities to funding entities and programmatic stakeholders, while serving as an accessible resource summarizing gap closure activities, relevant programmatic infusion points, and opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders. This presentation will provide an overview of the nine NASA medical capability gaps and their associated gap closure activities.

Moriah Thompson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), is a platform built upon a database of radiation data relevant to space biology. RadLab provides visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation of its database, as well as a submission process for inclusion of data from investigators. The RadLab application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax enabling users to retrieve data filtered by various combinations of parameters (detector type, location, direction, timespan, etc), which are delivered in machine-readable text formats, ready to be ingested by downstream analysis pipelines; while the graphical user interface (GUI) provides easy means to iteratively modify query parameters and incorporates a number of standard analyses and visualizations (time series plots, geospatial visualizations, detector comparison). Investigators from many countries, including US, Russia, Japan, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and Italy, have committed to provide data from their instruments located on the ISS; RadLab will also include data from other spacecraft in LEO (e.g., the Space Shuttle, the Mir space station), BLEO (e. g. BioSentinel, Mars Orbiter, among others), and on other celestial bodies (e. g. Chang’e 4, Curiosity). The first release of RadLab has been made available to the public. Once fully operational, RadLab will provide a comprehensive and ever-growing compendium of space radiation data, facilitating straightforward access to multiple types of readings and enabling space biology researchers to perform intercomparisons of detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions, both via programmatic retrieval of these data and via the graphical analysis toolkit; as well as a user-friendly submission portal for ingesting data from space agencies and research institutions. Radiation scientists will be able to use RadLab to gain a deeper understanding of the space radiation environment for future human space exploration. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster close collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data normalization, to guide the development of features of the analysis toolkit, to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation biology research, and eventually to provide a forum for discussing relevant research issues that can take advantage of RadLab's capabilities.

radiation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), comprises a database of radiation measurements relevant to space biology, and visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation and retrieval of these data. The attributes of data available through RadLab include spacecraft, types of radiation sensing instruments, locations within the spacecraft (e.g. modules of the ISS), associated celestial bodies, trajectories, and spacecraft coordinates. The application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax for retrieval of timestamped data filtered by various combinations of such attributes; the graphical user interface (GUI) extends this functionality with visualizations, such as spacecraft schematics, time series plots, geospatial visualizations, and provides easy means to iteratively refine search parameters, inspect the data on the fly, and download target subsets of these data. The release of RadLab currently available to the public contains datasets provided by US and international collaborators and focuses on data recorded on the ISS. Investigators from multiple countries, including the US, Canada, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia and the Czech Republic, have committed to provide data from their instruments in and beyond low Earth orbit; RadLab will also soon expand to include past (e.g. Shuttle and Mir) and future (e.g. Artemis) data. RadLab will provide a comprehensive, dynamic compendium of space radiation data, enabling the scientific community to perform analyses of data from multiple detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions and experiments, both via programmatic retrieval of these data and through the graphical analysis toolkit. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data harmonization, and to guide the development of the platform, with the goal to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation research and to advance our understanding of the space radiation environment in human habitats.

radiation↗

NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 1

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0. NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Uncertainty↗

NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗

NASA NTRS2025

Enhancing Nasa Sounding Rocket Capabilities Through Composite Material Adoption

Sounding rockets are a suborbital research platform employed by NASA for heliophysics, astrophysics, and geospace science investigations, and for technology development. They follow semi-parabolic trajectories and are launched using surplus military, and commercial, solid-propellant rocket motors. NASA sounding rocket payloads are comprised of standard, modular subassemblies, designed to perform specific functions critical to achieving mission success criteria. Since the program’s inception, payload length and mass have trended upwards, limiting the capability of the platform to reach exospheric apogees and decreasing the time above critical altitudes to observe solar and celestial targets. To offset this trend, composite materials may be of use in payload and subsystem design to decrease payload mass. This investigation seeks to understand if there is a practical benefit to introducing composite materials on the NSRP by assessing mission specific impacts to those missions conducted in fiscal year 2024. To accurately estimate the mass of a composites-based payload, a standard subsystem (NIACS) underwent structural reconfiguration. Materials were selected that align with NSRP design, manufacturing, and testing standards. NIACS reconfiguration resulted in a mass reduction of 19.6% which was then applied to the payload system in entirety. Using vehicle performance carpet plots, delta apogee and time above the Kármán line were determined. Performance improvements were then evaluated against that mission’s success criteria to determine if that mission would have benefitted from using composite materials. On average, each mission would have gained 59.8 kilometers apogee and 62.9 seconds above the Kármán line. However, only nine of the seventeen missions would have benefitted from these performance improvements. Two of the missions could have used a lower-impulse launch vehicle to achieve mission success. Upleg stability met programmatic criteria; downleg instability and dynamic pressure improved, showing that ballast would not offset the mass reduction of using composite materials. Cost analysis showed that production costs will increase 39%. For the two missions that could have used a lower-impulse launch vehicle, the cost of the launch vehicle would have offset payload production costs. In summary, composite materials are not recommended for universal use on NASA sounding rocket payloads due to unclear programmatic benefits and added cost. However, they are justified for optical astrophysics and heliophysics missions, high-apogee (exosphere) requirements, or when they reduce payload costs versus higher impulse launch vehicles. Reflown, recoverable subsystems should use composites to enhance apogee and observation time.

Robert Henry Burth↗