Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “scope”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

A Planning Pipeline for Large Multi-Agent Missions

In complex multi-agent applications, human operators are often tasked with planning and managing large heterogeneous teams of humans and autonomous vehicles. Although the use of these autonomous vehicles broadens the scope of meaningful applications, many of their systems remain unintuitive and difficult to master for human operators whose expertise lies in the application domain and not at the platform level. Current research focuses on the development of individual capabilities necessary to plan multi-agent missions of this scope, placing little emphasis on the integration of these components in to a full pipeline. The work presented in this paper presents a complete and user-agnostic planning pipeline for large multiagent missions known as the HOLII GRAILLE. The system takes a holistic approach to mission planning by integrating capabilities in human machine interaction, flight path generation, and validation and verification. Components – modules – of the pipeline are explored on an individual level, as well as their integration into a whole system. Lastly, implications for future mission planning are discussed.

Chandarana, Meghan↗
NASA NTRS2020

High-Efficiency Heat Exchanger to Achieve Low-Power CO2 Deposition

This document serves as the Concept of Operations (ConOps) for Iowa State University’s Space Habitat Research group’s design to fulfill the requirements of NASA’s eXploration Systems and Habitation (X-Hab) 2020 Academic Innovation Challenge. The title of the challenge awarded to the group is ‘High-Efficiency Heat Exchanger to Achieve Low-Power CO2 Deposition’, with the scope of the challenge being to ‘characterize the achievable efficiency of an air-to-air heat exchanger in order to cool air for CO2 removal utilizing phase change properties’. The scope of this document includes an introduction that provides background and rationale for the project, a high-level description of the envisioned system, functional requirements, operational scenarios and environment, risk mitigation, and costs and scheduling.

Ward Thomas↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trends in Small Satellite Presentations from 2017-2019

As the small satellite community expands and new technologies emerge, it is important to understand and interpret these changes over time. In doing so, we observe progress and aid future development within the field. During the summer of 2020 we compiled for assessment purposes, archived presentation data for years 2017-2019 from three primary sources: the CubeSat Developers Workshop, Interplanetary Small Satellite Conference, and the Small Satellite Conference. A few examples of the information we recorded and compiled were presenter names and affiliations, presentation topic, and mission progress status. Ultimately, we reviewed roughly 600 presentations between the three conferences and the data obtained therein form the basis of our trend assessment. The paper focuses on trends interpreted through the assessment of key elements available in the content of each presentation to include: SmallSat mission developers, subsystem developments and the expanded scope for small satellite destinations. Data was generalized using various forms of analysis depending on the type of information being assessed. In the end, we achieved our goal of reducing the content to its key points and major takeaways from the conference proceedings. In this presentation, the observed trends in data and our findings will be discussed. First, we will cover changes in presentation topics by categorizing them as either: science, technology, science/technology, or other. Our next topic will be about the agencies and organizations at the forefront of small satellite research and development. The following section will explain trends in subsystem developments for telecommunications, propulsion, power, and thermal management. Further discussion will highlight how the scope of interplanetary spaceflight has expanded since 2017 as new small spacecraft missions venture beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space exploration. And finally, we will observe what information was lacking in archived presentations which included but not limited to: mission’s funding source, presentation focus area, and software used.

Small Satellite↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trends in Small Satellite Presentations from 2017 - 2019

As the small satellite community expands and new technologies emerge, it is important to understand and interpret these changes over time. In doing so, we observe progress and aid future development within the field. During the summer of 2020 we compiled for assessment purposes, archived presentation data for years 2017-2019 from three primary sources: the CubeSat Developers Workshop, Interplanetary Small Satellite Conference, and the Small Satellite Conference. A few examples of the information we recorded and compiled were presenter names and affiliations, presentation topic, and mission progress status. Ultimately, we reviewed roughly 600 presentations between the three conferences and the data obtained therein form the basis of our trend assessment. The paper focuses on trends interpreted through the assessment of key elements available in the content of each presentation to include: SmallSat mission developers, subsystem developments and the expanded scope for small satellite destinations. Data was generalized using various forms of analysis depending on the type of information being assessed. In the end, we achieved our goal of reducing the content to its key points and major takeaways from the conference proceedings. In this presentation, the observed trends in data and our findings will be discussed. First, we will cover changes in presentation topics by categorizing them as either: science, technology, science/technology, or other. Our next topic will be about the agencies and organizations at the forefront of small satellite research and development. The following section will explain trends in subsystem developments for telecommunications, propulsion, power, and thermal management. Further discussion will highlight how the scope of interplanetary spaceflight has expanded since 2017 as new small spacecraft missions venture beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space exploration. And finally, we will observe what information was lacking in archived presentations which included but not limited to: mission’s funding source, presentation focus area, and software used.

Small Satellites↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pilot Workload Rating Predictions Using Image Data and Recurrent Neural Networks

In this work, we augmented existing methods for estimating pilot workload ratings with deep neural networks trained using data from simulated flight tests in the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). We used an existing method, Spare Capacity Operations Estimator (SCOPE), along with a recurrent neural network and conducted comparison studies between the two methods individually, and when used together. We found that using both methods together can improve the result over using either approach alone. In our first test case, we achieved an improved linear correlation coefficient of 0.409 over that of SCOPE alone at 0.352 on the training dataset. Through cross validation, we also found that the results may be dependent on the split of training vs. validation data, and that further investigation should be conducted to understand what additional inputs to the neural network model should be made.

Image Data↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Topographic Quintet: Comparing Five Methods for Measuring Ultra-High Resolution Topography

We compare different methods for collecting ultra-high resolution topography data within an analog planetary, human landing site scale area. Our aim is to investigate the cost and benefits of different 3D terrain mapping techniques, their associated data collection methods, and how their different specifications (e.g., range, spatial resolution, scanning-time, mobility, operating constraints, GPS-Denied operation, etc.) might be applied to landing-site characterization and mission operations. We compare 3D terrain data collected during a field campaign in November 2021 from an outcrop at Kilbourne Hole in southern New Mexico using different Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors on the ground and stereo-derived 3D data from framing cameras mounted on small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS).Our foci for this experiment are ground-based, surveying, and autonomous vehicle-type 3D scanning sensors that might be used for planetary surface exploration from landed assets (e.g., lander, rover, astronaut-mounted sensors, decent imaging, hoppers, or drones).[e.g. 1]This test is not meant to benchmark these scanners against one another, nor provide a recommendation for a specific make or model. Rather, our goal is to quantify time, effort, resolution, and operational trade-offs that are important for selecting a topographic instrument/methodology for a given scope of terrain characterization. Our results indicate that each technique is capable of exceptional quality terrain characterization for planetary exploration and scientific inquiry, but we hypothesize the appropriate technique is highly dependent on the scope of operational specifications and science requirements.

P Whelley↗
NASA NTRS2021

Reducing Risk of InSight Surface Operations Through High-Fidelity Command Sequence Modeling

Simulating spacecraft behavior is crucial for the success of deep space missions, and failure to do so may result in damages to or the loss of the spacecraft. Many previous deep space missions have made use of ground-simulation of sequenced commanding, at speeds far greater than real time, to predict spacecraft state over time through the execution of onboard sequences. This type of modeling can be done at any fidelity, and most missions have opted to decrease fidelity to reduce cost and complexity. However, NASA’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission expanded the scope of ground modeling considerably, which has led to numerous benefits over past implementations. This paper will discuss the process and products that InSight created, as well as the lessons learned from successfully operating the spacecraft on Mars. InSight is the first JPL mission to expand the scope of ground modeling to include the uplink of files from Earth to the spacecraft, rather than making the simplification that any command sequences already exist onboard the spacecraft. The advantages of modeling the uplink of files are numerous. First, it allows for accurate modeling of the onboard filesystem of the spacecraft at all points in time, meaning that all file loads and deletions throughout the mission are modeled at the exact moment they are predicted to actually happen. Second, operators can be more certain that dependencies between sequences are not broken due to the dynamic nature of the filesystem as files are deleted, copied, and uplinked. Lastly, spacecraft filesystem tracking allows for management of sequences prior to uplink, limiting the uplink to only new sequences. The onboard filesystem model became crucial to mission success, emphasizing the importance of investing in accurate models before the need for them arises. During daily tactical operations of a spacecraft on Mars, a model is only useful if the results can be interpreted quickly. In this fast-paced environment, it is essential that command products are modeled and reviewed, errors are found and diagnosed, and new command products are redelivered, remodeled, re-reviewed in a timely manner. It is impossible to review the entire model and therefore the results of the model must be condensed and presented in a fashion that is intuitive, easy-to-navigate, complete, and trustworthy. InSight developed a number of innovative sequence review products that are designed to provide operators with the information required to quickly assess the validity of command products and diagnose potential issues. Together, these products provide a complete, yet succinct picture of the command and sequence model to the operators and facilitate a quick assessment of all sequence command products. This paper will cover planning and sequencing innovations made during InSight surface operations, and will compare the tools, processes, and results to those on other missions. Additionally, the paper will cover the flexible, yet robust nature of the planning and sequencing system architecture and how that flexibility allowed for rapid development and response to the unpredictability of Mars.

Cloutier, Kyle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The INSTEP Monitoring Network: Merging High-and-Low Cost Measurements to Characterize California Wildfires

Despite challenges with data quality and scope, low-cost sensor networks have skyrocketed in popularity over the last 15 years, making air quality data available on refined spatial scales. More recently, studies have leveraged both high and low-quality instruments to create stronger “hybrid” models, with most studies focusing on particulate matter. Low-cost measurements typically represent ground-level emissions only, providing context for human health issues from climate change-driven events such as wildfires. Since low-cost sensors’ capabilities are localized, daily events and microclimates tend to dominate the data rather than larger regional or atmospheric trends. Likewise, their low cost explains their high uncertainty. In contrast, some regulatory-grade instruments produce column measurements as well, providing reliable information on a broader scope. To bridge this gap while expanding into gas-phase measurements, we deployed 12 air quality sensor packages in California, USA during the 2022 wildfire season. These INSTEP (Inexpensive Network Sensor Technology Exploring Pollution) monitors measure carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and several hydrocarbons including methane (CH4) and formaldehyde (HCHO). Half of the monitors were co-located with remote sensing spectrometers: NASA Pandora and Total Column Carbon Observing Network (TCCON). The overlap in pollutants includes NO2, O3, and HCHO between the INSTEP monitors and the Pandora column measurements. TCCON covers column CO, CO2, and CH4, rounding out our comparison. Most of the monitors were distributed throughout the San Francisco Bay area, and an additional three were located within 100 km of Los Angeles. The sites ranged in geographic and population characteristics, including desert, mountainous, coastal, and urban locations. Since varying environmental conditions such as temperature and pressure are known to challenge sensor performance, we will apply newer sensor “calibration” techniques meant to combat this. We will normalize our sensor signals by z-scoring them prior to applying a single calibration model in the form of multivariate linear regression or an artificial neural network. While this technique has been validated for the hydrocarbon and ozone sensor types (metal oxide), it has not yet been tested on electrochemical and non-dispersive infrared sensors, which are also used in the INSTEP monitors. This will serve as a test to see if this normalization technique – or another – is most effective in accounting for environmental differences among sensors. Related data analysis efforts have found success with a variety of geospatial analysis techniques, including weighted network models in which high-quality instruments are given higher weights than their low-cost counterparts. Our preliminary analysis will focus on kriging, which uses a Gaussian algorithm to assign weights, providing estimated pollution levels at locations between monitors. Smoke trajectory and evolution will also be considered using both measurement types. We also aim to baseline subtract our emission estimates from each region to determine which portion of emissions are regional and local, further characterizing burn differences in northern and southern California fires. Future directions include using INSTEP jointly with TEMPO satellite data, and mobile deployments on aircraft and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV).

Low-cost sensors↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pre-Launch Performance Trending of Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS)

The Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) microwave radiometer instrument is utilized on-board NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) fleet of spacecraft to perform temperature and water vapor soundings of Earth’s atmosphere. Consisting of 22 channels over a frequency range from 22 to 183 GHz, ATMS provides high-impact observations for numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. A general description of the ATMS instrument is discussed in [1]. There are five ATMS flight units in the polar-orbiting JPSS program; three are currently on-orbit and two are pending launch. The first ATMS was flown on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) satellite, launched in 2011. The second ATMS was launched on the NOAA-20 (previously JPSS-1) satellite in 2017. The third ATMS was launched on the NOAA-21 (previously JPSS-2) satellite in 2022. The SNPP and NOAA-20 ATMS units are operational. The NOAA-21 ATMS unit is completing on-orbit commissioning and checkout, having achieved provisional maturity status in December 2022 with validated maturity expected in May 2023 [2]. The fourth and fifth ATMS units are planned for the JPSS-3 (launch ~2028) and JPSS-4 (launch ~2032) satellites [3]. This paper will focus on trending performance characteristics of each JPSS ATMS build from the pre-launch activities. Pre-launch trending of some parameters have been previously published up to the JPSS-3 mission [4][5]. This paper differs from and expands the scope of the prior work as it will include all five of the JPSS ATMS builds. The entire suite of JPSS ATMS units have completed their pre-ship instrument-level I&T and verification activities. These activities include a radiometric performance characterization of each instrument. In addition to comparing the performance across builds, the performance will also be compared to requirements and specifications where applicable. The on-orbit performance of the launched units will be excluded from the scope of this paper in order to focus on evaluations that are common across all builds. The post-launch performance of SNPP ATMS is detailed in [1][6][7][8]. The post-launch performance of NOAA-20 ATMS is detailed in [6][8][9]. The pre-launch characterization of the ATMS occurs at both subassembly-level and instrument-level testing. The antenna subsystem is tested at Northrop Grumman’s Compact Antenna Test Range (CATR) in Azusa, CA [9]. This testing characterizes the antenna pattern and the pointing performance of the scan drive mechanism and antenna subsystem. Trended parameters from this evaluation will include beam pointing accuracy, beamwidth, and beam efficiency. These parameters are captured in each instrument’s Calibration Data Book [10]. Instrument-level radiometric performance evaluation is primarily done during thermal vacuum (TVAC) calibration testing at Northrop Grumman’s Azusa, CA facility [9]. A general description of the calibration activities is presented in [1][9]. The testing involves inferring a scene target brightness temperature (TB) and comparing it to the actual scene TB while the instrument is at flight-like temperature and pressure environmental conditions. Trended parameters from this activity will include Noise Equivalent Delta Temperature (NEDT), nonlinearity, radiometric accuracy, gain stability, striping, and inter-channel noise correlation. The trending evaluation will allow for a direct comparison of the ATMS performance across builds. The paper will highlight observed performance improvements.

Edward J Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Bringing the Flight Surgeon Console Into the Artemis Era: Constructing A Quick Reference Guide for the Orion Vehicle

BACKGROUND: Historically, NASA flight surgeons working on control console have had access to a quick reference guide that provides tailored clinical information for a variety of medical conditions, symptoms, and events that crew members may experience on the International Space Station (ISS). With the development of the Orion vehicle and its new medical system intended for the Artemis missions, a new quick reference guide is required to reflect the capabilities of this new medical system. OVERVIEW: The Flight Surgeon Quick Reference Guide(FSQRG)offers a variety of information to flight surgeons. For each condition/symptom/event, the guide describes what actions and procedures crew members will perform either automatically or at the instruction of the flight surgeon. The guide describes what further information should be collected, lists potential diagnoses, and further actions available to be taken by the Flight Surgeon or crew. The guide also describes what medications are available to the crew, common clinical decision-making tools, and other terrestrial practices. Due to the significant differences between the ISS and the Orion vehicle in both structure and mission scope, Orion’s medical system is significantly smaller than the ISS’s. When constructing the new guide for the Orion vehicle we began with the ISS version of the guide as a template. We then replaced ISS crew procedure references with their Orion counterpart if one existed. We also added new Orion crew procedure references where clinically appropriate. Reductions or additions to the medical equipment/medication references were made until they were consistent with resources available on Orion. Finally, we constructed a resource matrix that allows flight surgeons to easily identify the location of medications and equipment required for crew procedures. DISCUSSION: The information provided in the updated FSQRG allows flight surgeons to make quick and clinically accurate decisions that can be accomplished within the scope of the Orion vehicle medical system. This timely and accurate decision making becomes more important as missions go beyond low earth orbit and communication becomes more delayed. Such quick reference guides also have the potential to reflect medical systems on future vehicles, missions, and partner vehicles.

Anderson carter↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling NASA’s Procedural Requirement Processes - Implications for Digital Future

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has an ongoing Digital Transformation effort and to leverage and showcase the power of Digital Transformation, an effort is underway to develop an integrated, datacentric, model representing NASA’s key process requirements. The task was divided into three phases: As Is modeling, Analysis, and To Be Planning. As part of this effort, a team has completed the first Phase I of the modeling task and is nearing completion of the second phase. This effort will capture the key elements as requirements, responsibilities, allocations, roles, products, and associated lifecycle elements. The scope of modeling included NASA’s NPR 7120.5 (Project and Program Management), NPR 7123.1 (Systems Engineering) and NPRs 8705.2 (Risk classification for Robotic Missions) and 8705.4 (Human-Rating Requirements for Space Missions). This paper will summarize the approach, scope, parsing patterns applied, metamodel, and associated workflows for the As-Is modeling. It will also summarize the results and insights gleaned during that phase, including the review process. These insights have informed the analysis and will be discussed. The analysis modeling phase will also be summarized including how the stakeholders were engaged, how the common elements were handled and dispositioned, and will also describe some of the plans for the future of NASA NPDs and NPRs.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2024

LTV-xEVA Applied Injury Biomechanics

Beginning in Artemis V, Lunar Terrain Vehicles (LTV) will be utilized to enable astronauts to explore the lunar south pole and conduct science farther from the landing site than during the Apollo program. However, LTV operation has the potential to cause injury to the suited crew member during their Extravehicular Activity (EVA). Injury risk caused by LTV acceleration and jerk combined with blunt loading from rigid suit components needs to be better understood. An effort began to create requirements for, model, and address the injury risk caused by the LTV combined with Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits. Mitigation of crew injury is a shared responsibility between LTV and the suit since neither can accomplish this independently. The modeling completed in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) helped to verify the fidelity of the requirements and parse out vendor responsibility (LTV, xEVAS, or NASA) for Artemis V and beyond. The scope of the modeling in FY23 used the LTV System Requirements Document (SRD) as worst-case inputs and modeled female 5th-, male 50th-, and male 95th-percentile subjects in hard-mounted seated and semi-standing postures. Soft-mounted (i.e., lap belt) and testing to validate the analysis was determined out of scope for FY23 work.

Spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

12-kW Advanced Electric Propulsion System Hall Current Thruster Qualification and Production Status

The AEPS contract was awarded to AR in May of 2016 with the goal of developing a 12.5kW Hall Thruster System, including the Hall Current Thruster (HCT), Power Processor Unit (PPU) and Xenon Flow Controller (XFC). It was originally targeted to support the Asteroid Redirect Mission, which was cancelled early in the project. The project was subsequently restructured to support the Gateway PPE propulsion mission, with modified scope that consisted of the development, qualification and delivery of three 12kW flight thrusters. The PPU and XFC components were designed and development hardware fabricated with initial testing performed prior to being de-scoped from the contract. System level testing was performed by AR using these engineering components in early 2022 at the Aerospace Corporation’s EP-3 test facility.

Hall thruster↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Defining A Modelling Language to Support Functional Hazard Assessment

Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA) is a key early-stage engineering process that supports the incorporation of safety in design by identifying the high-level functional hazards the system may encounter. While many FHA-like methodologies have been proposed in the design engineering literature, many of these methodologies have had difficulty becoming accepted industry practice. Industry standards, on the other hand, either provide too little recommendation on how to represent the function of the system to perform FHA, or rely on existing design artefacts which insufficiently support the goals of the process. This paper presents some of the problems with current modeling languages (both proposed and used) for FHA which limit the scope, expressiveness, flexibility, and precision of the analysis. It then outlines desirable principles an FHA-supporting analysis language should embody, and introduces the Functional Reasoning Design Language (FRDL), a formal modeling language for describing the functional elements of a system and their interactions, which aims to satisfy these principles. To demonstrate the use of this language, the modeling and hazard analysis of a disaster response drone is presented. While this case study is limited in scope, it highlights how FRDL can represent system function while reducing the ambiguity present in typical FHA-supporting functional modeling languages

Hazard Assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Systems Engineering Lessons Learned

The X-57 Maxwell is an electric aircraft based on a 4-passenger, twin engine Tecnam P2006T General Aviation aircraft. The X-57 project originally envisioned a straightforward integration of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware components and software into a novel configuration to demonstrate the aerodynamic and performance benefits of Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP). The project was initially started with a high-risk venture capitalist approach under NASA’s Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project, which led to an initial philosophy of Project Management “light” (which was then interpreted as Systems Engineering (SE) “light”). As the project matured, it was forced to transition to one with increasing SE-rigor as the project scope changed, hardware and software deficiencies were found, and the team realized the magnitude of the technical and integration challenges. In hindsight, these technical challenges came in part from an overly optimistic technology readiness assessment (TRA) at the beginning of the project, which resulted in the project assuming that little to no subsystem development would be required. The project’s approach to systems engineering evolved throughout three separate informal phases of the project as it underwent two key transitions as a result of the team wrestling with the technical challenges and resultant changing project scope. This paper discusses the assumptions, approaches, and challenges encountered from a Systems Engineering standpoint in each of the three informal phases of the X-57 project. This paper also provides recommendations on how future projects can apply Systems Engineering best practices upfront along with a realistic TRA to aid projects that find themselves with similar challenges.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LTV-xEVA Applied Injury Biomechanics

Beginning in Artemis V, Lunar Terrain Vehicles (LTV) will be utilized to enable astronauts to explore the lunar south pole and conduct science farther from the landing site than during the Apollo program. However, LTV operation has the potential to cause injury to the suited crew member during their Extravehicular Activity (EVA). Injury risk caused by LTV acceleration and jerk combined with blunt loading from rigid suit components needs to be better understood. An effort began to create requirements for, model, and address the injury risk caused by the LTV combined with Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits. Mitigation of crew injury is a shared responsibility between LTV and the suit since neither can accomplish this independently. The modeling completed in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) helped to verify the fidelity of the requirements and parse out vendor responsibility (LTV, xEVAS, or NASA) for Artemis V and beyond. The scope of the modeling in FY23 used the LTV System Requirements Document (SRD) as worst-case inputs and modeled female 5th-, male 50th-, and male 95th-percentile subjects in hard-mounted seated and semi-standing postures. Soft-mounted (i.e., lap belt) and testing to validate the analysis was determined out of scope for FY23 work.

Spacesuit↗
NASA NTRS2024

Combining Large Datasets - Cancer Moonshot Task Group Final Summary

In February 2022, President Biden re-ignited the Cancer Moonshot with bold new goals: to reduce the cancer death rate by half within 25 years and improve the lives of people with cancer and cancer survivors. To achieve these ambitious goals, the White House convened the first-ever Cancer Cabinet, bringing together departments and agencies from across the federal government to end cancer as we know it.The Cancer Cabinet convened three task forces and supporting task groups, including the Data and Innovation Task Force, which supported the Cancer Moonshot priority to “Deliver innovation to patients and communities.” In early 2023, the “Combining Large Datasets” (CoLD) Task Group was created within the Data and Innovation Task Force. The scope of the CoLD Task Group was how federal agencies combine large datasets for broad applications across cancer prevention and control, including nutrition, epidemiology, and military/Veteran health. Within this scope, the group sought to better leverage the immense potential of data and power of data tools to increase our understanding of cancer incidence, causes, mortality, treatments, prevention, outcomes, costs, and all other aspects of the burden of cancer.

data integration↗