Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Maximum Allowable Concentration”

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.

189 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Building a standardized Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE) framework for Mars

We advocate that the Decadal Survey recommends the NASA Science Mission Directorate to develop a rigorous Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE) framework for Mars, to optimize future atmospheric observations. Atmospheric conditions on Mars are a potential hazard source for landing missions. Errors in the estimates of atmospheric density profiles, inadequate knowledge of wind vertical structure and dust concentration as a function of height are likely causes of uncertainty at the landing site on the order of kilometers. An operational real-time weather forecasting capability for Mars would reduce such uncertainties, carrying enormous benefits to future robotic missions, and would be an invaluable prerequisite for human missions.A real-time forecasting capability relies upon three fundamental components: a critical mass of observing systems, a data assimilation system (DAS), and a global forecast model. The DAS allows the model to ingest the data effectively, optimizing the observational information content,and transforming them into a gridded representation of the atmosphere at a given time, called an ‘analysis’. The analysis is the best estimate of the atmospheric state for that time, and also represents a set of ‘initial conditions’ from which a global model can be initialized, to predict a future state of the atmosphere. The connection between analysis and forecast represents the foundation of modern weather forecasting. However, from the point of view of a forecast system,not all observations are equally impactful, partially because of the problem of “observational error correlation”, one important research topic in data assimilation development. For the Earth, partly due to the spontaneous and deregulated development of observations and forecast capabilities worldwide for more than half a century,the use of observations in contemporary operational forecast systems is suboptimal, with many potentially useful data being underutilized. On the contrary, Mars atmospheric scientists are in the unique situation of designing the next-generation observing systems by learning from the experience gathered on the Earth, so as to assure that the future instruments are specifically optimized to give the maximum benefit to a future weather forecast capability.An immensely powerful tool that has been firmly established by atmospheric scientists on the Earth is represented by a properly designed OSSE framework. A realistic OSSE framework cannot only quantify the benefit of future data types, be them surface based or space borne, but can also help design and optimize an entire observational network. Furthermore, OSSEs can provide deep insights into an atmosphere’s behavior, by addressing conceptual problems of its intrinsic predictability and delineating the regions or features of the atmosphere which are more sensitive to additional data and would benefit from a denser sampling. The difficulties posed by OSSEs are fundamentally different for Earth and Mars. For Earth, the enormous data volume imposes a tremendous constraint on any innovation in the observing systems: it is very hard for a single sensor to impact the skill. For Mars, the problem is the opposite: almost any additional instrument will exert some impact. However, OSSEs can help to evaluate the cost/benefit for every sensor and suggest optimal data configuration and density.The purpose of this white paper is to provide an introduction to a rigorously designed OSSE framework, explain the underlying problems and challenges, and engage the Mars community to collaborate with Earth Atmospheric scientists in order to develop a joint-OSSE framework for Mars with the largest consensual basis possible. An OSSE infrastructure would increase the understanding of the Martian atmosphere, would help NASA to optimize instrument specifications and orbit choice, providing the maximium benefit for a given expenditure of resources, and could even help establishing a roadmap for a future real-time weather forecasting capability.

Oreste Reale↗
NASA NTRS2011

Umbilical Deployment Device

The landing scheme for NASA's next-generation Mars rover will encompass a novel landing technique (see figure). The rover will be lowered from a rocket-powered descent stage and then placed onto the surface while hanging from three bridles. Communication between the rover and descent stage will be maintained through an electrical umbilical cable, which will be deployed in parallel with structural bridles. The -inch (13-mm) umbilical cable contains a Kevlar rope core, around which wires are wrapped to create a cable. This cable is helically coiled between two concentric truncated cones. It is deployed by pulling one end of the cable from the cone. A retractable mechanism maintains tension on the cable after deployment. A break-tie tethers the umbilical end attached to the rover even after the cable is cut after touchdown. This break-tie allows the descent stage to develop some velocity away from the rover prior to the cable releasing from the rover deck, then breaks away once the cable is fully extended. The descent stage pulls the cable up so that recontact is not made. The packaging and deployment technique can store a long length of cable in a relatively small volume while maintaining compliance with the minimum bend radius requirement for the cable being deployed. While the packaging technique could be implemented without the use of break-ties, they were needed in this design due to the vibratory environment and the retraction required by the cable. The break-ties used created a series of load-spikes in the deployment signature. The load spikes during the deployment of the initial three coils of umbilical showed no increase between the different temperature trials. The cold deployment did show an increased load requirement for cable extraction in the region where no break-ties were used. This increase in cable drag was superimposed on the loads required to rupture the last set of break-ties, and as such, these loads saw significant increase when compared to their ambient counterparts. While the loads showed spikes of high magnitude, they were of short duration. Because of this, neither the deployment of the rover, nor the motion of the descent stage, would be adversely affected. In addition, the umbilical was found to have a maximum of 1.2 percent chance for recontact with the ultra-high frequency antenna due to the large margin of safety built in.

Shafer, Michael W.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Pyrolysis Rate and Yield Strength Reduction Incarbon Fiber and Glass Fiber Composites Underreentry Heating Conditions

The behavior of composite materials, specifically carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), under reentry conditions poses a problem for space debris reentry risk modeling. Since these materials pyrolyze rather than melt and their different components demise at different rates, modeling their destruction to determine ground impact risk is complex. Modern spacecraft are using these materials in ever-greater quantities owing to their superior strength-to-weight characteristics, and this has required that the orbital debris community improve its understanding of how these materials demise on reentry. The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office undertook an extensive test campaign to better understand the rate at which several types of GFRP and CFRP materials pyrolyze under reentry heating conditions and how that pyrolysis affects the ultimate strength of the material. GFRP with a polyester resin (G10/FR-4) and CFRP with epoxy, cyanate ester, vinyl ester, and phenolic resins were tested. The test campaign was carried out at the Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Torch Facility at the University of Texas at Austin. Because the ICP facility operates in a shirt-sleeve environment, test samples can be changed within seconds or minutes, allowing many samples to be tested in a short period. Two heat flux rates, 20 W/m2 and 30W/m2, and two oxygen concentration conditions, 0% and 2% of atmospheric, were applied to all five types of material. To measure both the char rate and the effect of pyrolysis on the ultimate material strength, two types of test were carried out for each material: a char rate test on a ~10 mm thick sample of material and an in-situ bending stress test of a ~2 mm thick sample of material. Measurements of the char rate showed very similar average pyrolysis front velocity in epoxy resin CFRP as in G10 at 3.6 mm/min and 3.4 mm/min, respectively. However, the total mass loss rate in theG10 was nearly double that of the CFRP at 3.8 g/min and 2.2 g/min, respectively. This result represented a slow ablation rate of carbon fibers in the CFRP at the temperatures encountered in low Earth orbit reentry and a comparatively rapid removal of the glass fibers in G10 due to melting and spallation. Pyrolysis front velocity was more significantly affected by the type of plastic than the type of fiber, with the cyanate ester CFRP samples displaying an average pyrolysis front velocity of only 1.9 mm/min. Similarly, the effect of thermal exposure on the ultimate strength of the material depended heavily on the type of plastic and very little on the type of fiber in the material. Epoxy, vinyl ester, and polyester resins all behaved very similarly, with complete structural failure at between 400 J/g and 600 J/g of specific absorbed heat. Phenolic and cyanate ester resins, on the other hand, displayed a change in structural properties that was only barely measurable with the current apparatus even after the maximum exposure time tested. These data are being incorporated into a numerical model of the ablation and demise of composite materials that will be used to more accurately calculate the ground casualty risk of future spacecraft.

Benton R. Greene↗
NASA NTRS1999

Lunar Meteorites and Implications for Compositional Remote Sensing of the Lunar Surface

Lunar meteorites (LMs) are rocks found on Earth that were ejected from the Moon by impact of an asteroidal meteoroid. Three factors make the LMs important to remote-sensing studies: (1) Most are breccias composed of regolith or fragmental material; (2) all are rocks that resided (or breccias composed of material that resided) in the upper few meters of the Moon prior to launch and (3) most apparently come from areas distant from the Apollo sites. How Many Lunar Locations? At this writing (June 1999), there are 18 known lunar meteorite specimens. When unambiguous cases of terrestrial pairing are considered, the number of actual LMs reduces to 13. (Terrestrial pairing is when a single piece of lunar rock entered Earth's atmosphere, but multiple fragments were produced because the meteoroid broke apart on entry, upon hitting the ground or ice, or while being transported through the ice.) We have no reason to believe that LMs preferentially derive from any specific region(s) of the Moon; i.e., we believe that they are samples from random locations. However, we do not know how many different locations are represented by the LMs; mathematically, it could be as few as 1 or as many as 13. The actual maximum is < 13 because in some cases a single impact appears to have yielded more than one LM. Yamato 793169 and Asuka 881757 are considered "source-crater paired" or "launch paired" because they are compositionally and petrographically similar to each other and distinct from the others, and both have similar cosmic-ray exposure (CRE) histories. The same can be said of QUE 94281 and Y 793274. Thus the 13 meteorites probably represent a maximum of 11 locations on the Moon. The minimum number of likely source craters is debated and in flux as new data for different isotopic systems are obtained. Conservatively, considering CRE data only, a minimum of about 5 impacts is required. Compositional and petrographic data offer only probabilistic constraints. An extreme, but not unreasonable viewpoint, is that such data offer no constraint. For example, if one were to cut up the Apollo 17 landing site (which was selected for its diversity) into softball-sized pieces, some of those pieces (e.g., sample 70135) would be crystalline mare basalts like Y 793169 whereas others (e.g., sample 73131 would be feldspathic regolith breccias like MAC 88104/ 88105. However, nature is not so devious. Warren argues that LMs come from craters of only a few kilometers in diameter. If so, even though CRE data allow, for example, that ALHA 81005 and Y 791197) were launched simultaneously from the same crater, the probability is nevertheless low because the two meteorites are compositionally and mineralogically distinct. Thus, within the allowed range (5-11) for the number of locations represented by the LMs, values at the high end of the range are probably more likely. Mare Meteorites: Three LMs consist almost entirely of mare basalt. Two, Y 793169 and Asuka 881757, are unbrecciated, low-Ti, crystalline rocks that are compositionally and mineralogically similar (but not identical) to each other; they probably derive from a single lunar-mare location. The third, EET 87521/96008, is a fragmental breccia consisting predominantly of VLT mare basalt. Thus, these LMs probably represent only two lunar mare locations. The basaltic LMs have mineral and bulk compositions distinct from Apollo mare basalts. The petrography of Calcalong Creek has not been described in detail, but compositionally it is unique in that it corresponds to a mixture (breccia) of about one-half feldspathic material (i.e., the mean composition of the feldspathic lunar meteorites, below), one-fourth KREEP norite, one-fourth VLT mare basalt (like EET 87521), and 1% CI chondrite. With 4 micro g/g Th and correspondingly high concentrations of other incompatible elements, it is the only lunar meteorite that is likely to have come from within the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT). Yamato 793274 and QUE 94281 are together distinct in being fragmental breccias containing subequal parts of feldspathic highland material and VLT mare basalt. Jolliff et al. estimate a mare to highland ratio of 54:46 for QUE 94281 and 62:38 for Y 793274; this difference is well within the range observed for soils collected only centimeters apart (in cores) at interface site like Apollo 15 and 17 [11]. Although the two meteorites were found on opposite sides of Antarctica, they are probably launch-paired. The strongest evidence is that the pyroclastic glass spherules that occur in both are of two compositional groups and the two groups are essentially the same in both meteorites. Yamato 791197 is nominally a feldspathic lunar meteorite (below), but among FLMs, it probably contains the highest abundance of clasts and glasses of mare derivation. As a consequence, its composition is at the high-Fe, low-Mg end of the range for FLMs and is not included in the FLM average of Table 1. Its composition is consistent with about 10% mare-derived material. Similarly, the two small (Y 82) pieces of Y 82192/82193186032 are more mafic than the large (Y 86) piece, probably as a result of about 7% mare-derived material. All Apollo missions went to areas in or near the PKT, and, consequently, all Apollo regolith samples are contaminated with Th-rich material from the PKT. At the nominally "typical" highland site, Apollo 16, about 30% of the regolith (<1-mm fines) is Th-rich ejecta from the Imbrium impact and about 6% is mare material probably derived from mare basins. Thus Apollo 16 regolith is not typical of the highlands. Among Apollo rocks, the compositions of the FLMs correspond most closely to the feldspathic granulitic breccias of Apollo 16 and 17. (Additional information is contained in original)

Korotev, R. L.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Global Methane Budget 2000–2020

Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH4 emissions compared to those of CO2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH4 yr−1). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH4 yr−1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH4 yr−1) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH4 yr−1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH4 yr−1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty (∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH4 yr−1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH4 yr−1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GKQ9-2RHT (Martinez et al., 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Delivery for Smallsats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed CubeSats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the CubeSats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth- Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Opportunities for SmallSats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed cubesats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the cubesats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the 2 Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth-Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Critical Load Exceedances for North America and Europe using an Ensemble of Models and an Investigation of Causes for Environmental Impact Estimate Variability: An AQMEII4 Study

Exceedances of critical loads for deposition of sulphur (S) and nitrogen (N) to different ecosystems were estimated using European and North American ensembles of air quality models, under Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), to identify where risk of ecosystem harm is expected to occur based on model deposition estimates. The ensembles were driven by common emissions and lateral boundary condition inputs. Model output was regridded to common North American and Europe 0.125° resolution domains, which were then used to calculate critical load exceedances. New, targeted deposition diagnostics implemented in AQMEII4 allowed an unprecedented level of post-simulation analysis to be carried out and facilitated the identification of specific causes of model-to-model variability in critical load exceedance estimates. New datasets for North American critical loads for acidity for forest soil water and aquatic ecosystems were combined with the ensemble deposition predictions to show a substantial decrease in the area and number of locations in exceedance between 2010 and 2016 (forest soils: 13.2 % to 6.1 %; aquatic ecosystems: 21.2 % to 11.4 %). All models agreed in the direction of the ensemble exceedance change between 2010 and 2016. The North American ensemble also predicted a decrease in both severity and total area in exceedance between the years 2010 and 2016 for eutrophication-impacted ecosystems in the USA (sensitive epiphytic lichen: 81.5 % to 75.8 %). The exceedances for herbaceous community richness also decreased between 2010 and 2016, from 13.9 % to 3.9 %. The uncertainty associated with the North American eutrophication results is high; there were sharp differences between the models in both predictions of total N deposition and the change in N deposition, and hence in the predicted eutrophication exceedances between the two years. The European ensemble was used to predict relatively static exceedances of critical loads with respect to acidification (4.48 % to 4.32 % from 2009 to 2010) while eutrophication exceedance increased slightly (60.2 % to 62.2 %). While most models showed the same changes in critical load exceedances as the ensemble between the two years, the spatial extent and magnitude of exceedances varied significantly between the models. The reasons for this variation were examined in detail by first ranking the relative contribution of different sources of sulphur and nitrogen deposition in terms of deposited mass and model-to-model variability in that deposited mass, followed by their analysis using AQMEII4 diagnostics, along with evaluation of the most recent literature. All models in both the North American and European ensembles had net annual negative biases with respect to observed wet deposition of sulphate, nitrate and ammonium. Diagnostics and recent literature suggest that this bias may stem from insufficient cloud scavenging of aerosols and gases, and may be improved through the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging within the modelling frameworks. The inability of North American models to predict the timing of the seasonal peak in wet ammonium ion deposition (observed maximum was in April, while all models predicted a June maximum) may also relate to the need for multiphase hydrometeor scavenging (absence of snow scavenging in all models employed here). High variability in the relative importance of particulate sulphate, nitrate and ammonium deposition fluxes between models was linked to the use of updated particle dry deposition parameterizations in some models. However, recent literature and further development of some of the models within the ensemble suggests these particulate biases may also be ameliorated via the incorporation of multiphase hydrometeor scavenging. Annual sulphur and nitrogen deposition prediction variability was linked to SO 2 and HNO 3 dry deposition parameterizations, and diagnostic analysis showed that the cuticle and soil deposition pathways dominate the deposition mass flux of these species. Further work improving parameterizations for these deposition pathways should reduce variability in model acidifying gas deposition estimates. The absence of base cation chemistry in some models was shown to be a major factor in positive biases in fine mode particulate ammonium and particle nitrate concentrations. Models employing ammonia bidirectional fluxes had both the largest and the smallest magnitude biases, depending on the model and bidirectional flux algorithm employed. A careful analysis of bidirectional flux models suggests that those with poor NH 3 performance may underestimate the extent of NH 3 emissions fluxes from forested areas. Based on these results, an increased process-research focus is therefore recommended for the following model processes and on observations which may assist in model evaluation and improvement: multiphase hydrometeor scavenging combined with updated particle dry deposition, cuticle and soil deposition pathway algorithms for acidifying gases, base cation chemistry and emissions, and NH 3 bidirectional fluxes. Comparisons with satellite observations suggest that oceanic NH 3 emissions sources should be included in regional chemical transport models. The choice of land use database employed within any given model was shown to significantly influence deposition totals in several instances, and employing a common land use database across chemical transport models and critical load calculations is recommended for future work.

critical loads↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗