SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “policy based management”

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.

192 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Updated Human Mars Ascent Vehicle Concept in Support of NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021

The NASA Artemis program has brought significant change to the agency’s human exploration strategy over the last several years. The human exploration of Mars remains an ultimate objective of the overall human exploration strategy. However, how the agency intends to execute initial human exploration of Mars has shifted to better align with current policy. These changes find their way into the design of key architecture elements, such as the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). Of the numerous changes in the conceptual human Mars architecture, two in particular have had significant impact on the design of the human MAV: the desire for minimal surface infrastructure for initial human Mars missions, and technology investment timelines in support of initial human missions to Mars. The first leads to a surface mission architecture targeting a 30-day surface duration with two crewmembers. The second drives out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) from the initial sortie. As a result, the reference MAV design for initial human Mars missions in the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) is based around supporting the return of 2 crew from the surface of Mars, without surface ISRU. This has led to several design changes since 2019, when details of a reference human MAV were last published. The MAV concept for SAC21 consists of a two-stage vehicle capable of supporting two crew for 84 hours. This duration is derived from a baseline ascent trajectory targeting an apoapsis rendezvous with the habitation element in a nominal 5-sol Mars aggregation orbit. With the goal of minimizing technology investments for the initial surface sortie removing ISRU from the trade space, the MAV must now be landed either fully loaded with propellant, or with some portion of the propellant off-loaded. Landing a partially-fueled MAV will require additional surface assets to perform robotic propellant transfer on the surface of Mars from a pre-emplaced propellant depot. Furthermore, cryogenic fluid management and storage for extended duration with no losses represents additional technology investment that would have to be made to support cryogenic-based propellant concepts that have been the baseline in past architectures. As a result, the SAC21 architecture utilizes a storable propellant-based MAV propulsion system to minimize these potential technology investments incurred by cryogenic-based propulsion systems. Recent efforts also focused on evaluating the sensitivity of key design parameters, such as landing site latitude, elevation, and local atmospheric conditions. All play a large role in determining the predicted propellant requirements of the MAV. Understanding their potential impacts is important because of the rippling effects of changes to the MAV design on other architecture elements, such as entry, descent, landing, and transportation systems. Results indicate up to +2% to -4% wet mass variation due to landing site latitude, with higher latitudes greater than 70 degrees North resulting in greater than 6% wet mass increases. The MAV saw reduced impact due to atmospheric design parameters, which only accounting for -0.6% to +0.4% wet mass variation.

Douglas J. Trent↗

NASA NTRS2018

Climate Change and Drought: From Past to Future

Drought is a complex and multivariate phenomenon influenced by diverse physical and biological processes. Such complexity precludes simplistic explanations of cause and effect, making investigations of climate change and drought a challenging task. Here, we review important recent advances in our understanding of drought dynamics, drawing from studies of paleoclimate, the historical record, and model simulations of the past and future. Paleoclimate studies of drought variability over the last two millennia have progressed considerably through the development of new reconstructions and analyses combining reconstructions with process-based models. This work has generated new evidence for tropical Pacific forcing of megadroughts in Southwest North America, provided additional constraints for interpreting climate change projections in poorly characterized regions like East Africa, and demonstrated the exceptional magnitude of many modern era droughts. Development of high resolution proxy networks has lagged in many regions (e.g., South America, Africa), however, and quantitative comparisons between the paleoclimate record, models, and observations remain challenging. Fingerprints of anthropogenic climate change consistent with long-term warming projections have been identified for droughts in California, the Pacific Northwest, Western North America, and the Mediterranean. In other regions (e.g., Southwest North America, Australia, Africa), however, the degree to which climate change has affected recent droughts is more uncertain. While climate change-forced declines in precipitation have been detected for the Mediterranean, in most regions, the climate change signal has manifested through warmer temperatures that have increased evaporative losses and reduced snowfall and snowpack levels, amplifying deficits in soil moisture and runoff despite uncertain precipitation changes. Over the next century, projections indicate that warming will increase drought risk and severity across much of the subtropics and mid-latitudes in both hemispheres, a consequence of regional precipitation declines and widespread warming. For many regions, however, the magnitude, robustness, and even direction of climate change-forced trends in drought depends on how drought is defined, with often large differences across indicators of precipitation, soil moisture, runoff, and vegetation health. Increasing confidence in climate change projections of drought and the associated impacts will likely depend on resolving uncertainties in processes that are currently poorly constrained (e.g., land-atmosphere interactions, terrestrial vegetation) and improved consideration of the role for human policies and management in ameliorating and adapting to changes in drought risk.

Detection and attribution↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Systemic Risk From the Perspective of Climate, Environmental and Disaster Risk Science and Practice

Understanding and managing systemic risk is more important than ever due to our immense global connectivity (e.g., between sectors, such as food-health-water-energy, countries and continents, down to individuals). Despite the fact that the notion of systemic risk is several decades old, the term is used in diverse ways across different disciplines (e.g., financial systems, medicine, earth system sciences, disaster risk research and climate science). Triggered by the repercussions of the global financial crisis of the late 2000s, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which are clear realization of systemic risk, the perception of systemic risk has often been focused on global and catastrophic or even existential risks. Systemic risk, however, can be seen as a feature of systems at all possible scales (e.g., global, national, regional, local) with system boundaries varying depending on the context. Addressing current societal challenges, such as climate change, in terms of systemic risk requires integrating different systems perspectives and fostering system thinking, while implementing key intergovernmental agendas, such as the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on insights gained and knowledge collected from an expert workshop, literature review and expert elicitation, we give an integrated perspective of climate, environmental and disaster risk science and practice on systemic risk as summarized in a Briefing Note to the International Science Council. We provide an overview of concepts of systemic risk that have evolved over time and identify commonalities across terminologies and perspectives associated with systemic risk used in different contexts. Key attributes of systemic risk are outlined without prescribing a single definition, and information and data requirements are discussed that are essential for a better and more actionable understanding of the systemic nature of risk. Finally, the opportunities to connect research and policy for addressing systemic risk are highlighted.

systemic risk↗

NASA NTRS2007

Organization, Management and Function of International Space Station (ISS) Multilateral Medical Operations

Long duration crews have inhabited the ISS since November of 2000. The favorable medical outcomes of its missions can be largely attributed to sustained collective efforts of all ISS Partners medical organizations. In-flight medical monitoring and support, although crucial, is just a component of the ISS system of Joint Medical Operations. The goal of this work is to review the principles, design, and function of the multilateral medical support of the ISS Program. The governing documents, which describe the relationships among all ISS partner medical organizations, were evaluated, followed by analysis of the roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes of the ISS medical boards, panels, and working groups. The degree of integration of the medical support system was evaluated by reviewing the multiple levels of the status reviews and mission assurance activities carried out throughout the last six years. The Integrated Medical Group, consisting of physicians and other essential personnel in the mission control centers represents the front-line medical support of the ISS. Data from their day-to-day activities are presented weekly at the Space Medicine Operations Team (SMOT), where known or potential concerns are addressed by an international group of physicians. A broader status review is conducted monthly to project the state of crew health and medical support for the following month, and to determine measures to return to nominal state. Finally, a comprehensive readiness review is conducted during preparations for each ISS mission. The Multilateral Medical Policy Board (MMPB) issues medical policy decisions and oversees all health and medical matters. The Multilateral Space Medicine Board (MSMB) certifies crewmembers and visitors for training and space flight to the Station, and physicians to practice space medicine for the ISS. The Multilateral Medical Operations Panel (MMOP) develops medical requirements, defines and supervises implementation of operational countermeasures, environmental monitoring, medical care, and emergency medical services. MMOP assures the medical readiness of the Station for each subsequent mission or critical event. All boards and panels have functioned effectively and without interruptions even in various challenging circumstances. Based on the experience of the authors, consensus has prevailed as the primary nature of decisions made by all ISS medical groups, at all levels. The six first years of piloted operation have demonstrated the ability of the ISS medical authority groups and the medical infrastructure to implement medical policies and requirements, effectively interface with non-medical groups, and maintain the health and productivity of the crew in an integrated, multilaterally coordinated fashion. The medical support system appears to be mature and ready for further expansion of all Partners roles, and for the anticipated increase in the size of ISS crews.

Duncan, James M.↗

NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) enables highly automated, cooperative, passenger or cargo-carrying air transportation services in and around urban areas. UAM is a subset of the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) concept under development by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and industry. The Strategic Conflict Management (SCM) Simulation, dubbed “X4”, was conducted between July 2021 and June 2022 by NASA with the FAA and industry to evolve the Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) that will be needed to ensure initial UAM operations can scale in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) v1 [1] served as an initial guiding document for the X4 airspace management system design to ensure the architecture supports testing of services provided by third-party service providers. To that end, the X4 architecture leveraged concepts and technologies developed for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) while also developing and testing new capabilities and services needed for UAM. The architecture included an initial prototype of the FAA-Industry Exchange Protocol (FIDXP), third-party services such as the PSUs, and Discovery and Synchronization Service (DSS), and other new services such as Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to facilitate UAM strategic conflict management. During X4, NASA led discussions and collaborated with seven industry airspace partners to develop initial airspace management concepts for UAM that drove what would be tested and evaluated during the simulations. The initial capabilities defined for PSU leveraged UTM UAS Service Supplier (USS) as a starting point and evolved to meet UAM requirements. These discussions were also an opportunity for NASA to collaborate with industry to develop a set of initial Community-Based Rules (CBRs). These CBRs enabled how UAM traffic would be cooperatively managed among UAM operators. The collaborative, iterative process of developing CBRs with industry during X4 provided insight into the challenges involved and identified the need for a suitable and effective forum for future CBR development. In parallel with these discussions, NASA conducted a series of seven software sprints and two collaborative simulations with the airspace partners that built up in complexity. Over the course of the year, all seven partners successfully completed all the sprints by demonstrating the required capabilities. They also participated in the two collaborative simulations to demonstrate how multiple PSUs could work together in a collaborative, more complex environment with higher traffic density. The X4 simulation accomplished NASA's objectives and helped advance the development of the seven participating PSUs. The lessons learned provided insight into key elements of the UAM Notional Architecture from the FAA ConOps v1 [1] and UTM technologies when applied to UAM: - Having a Concept of Use (ConUse) defined prior to the activity would accelerate the time and effort from concept development to testing. - While the UAM Notional Architecture provided a starting point for a federated architecture that support services provided by third-party providers, the USS and PSU differed in their capability definitions for operational intent submission and sharing, conformance monitoring, airspace authorization, strategic conflict management, airspace constraints and dynamic replanning. - While existing DSS developed for UTM provided a way for PSU and other UAM services (such as DCB) to discover relevant operations from each other, additional complexity and challenges were found during X4 testing and illuminated the need for a more suitable solution for UAM. Industry can leverage the results of this demonstration to accelerate UAM requirements, CBRs, and standards development. The FAA and other government municipalities and agencies will be able to leverage results to inform future policies and identify additional gaps that require further analysis, moving toward operationalization of UAM.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2015

Implementing NASA's Capability-Driven Approach: Insight into NASA's Processes for Maturing Exploration Systems

NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Space Launch System: A Flagship for Exploration Beyond Earth's Orbit

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is making progress toward delivering a new capability for exploration beyond Earth orbit in an austere economic climate. This fact drives the SLS team to find innovative solutions to the challenges of designing, developing, fielding, and operating the largest rocket in history. To arrive at the current SLS plan, government and industry experts carefully analyzed hundreds of architecture options and arrived at the one clear solution to stringent requirements for safety, affordability, and sustainability over the decades that the rocket will be in operation. This paper will explore ways to fit this major development within the funding guidelines by using existing engine assets and hardware now in testing to meet a first launch by 2017. It will explain the SLS Program s long-range plan to keep the budget within bounds, yet evolve the 70 metric ton (t) initial lift capability to 130-t lift capability after the first two flights. To achieve the evolved configuration, advanced technologies must offer appropriate return on investment to be selected through a competitive process. For context, the SLS will be larger than the Saturn V that took 12 men on 6 trips for a total of 11 days on the lunar surface over 4 decades ago. Astronauts train for long-duration voyages on the International Space Station, but have not had transportation to go beyond Earth orbit in modern times, until now. NASA is refining its mission manifest, guided by U.S. Space Policy and the Global Exploration Roadmap. Launching the Orion Multi-Purpose Cargo Vehicle s first autonomous certification flight in 2017, followed by a crewed flight in 2021, the SLS will offer a robust way to transport international crews and the air, water, food, and equipment they need for extended trips to asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. In addition, the SLS will accommodate high-priority science experiments. SLS affordability initiatives include streamlining interfaces, applying risk-based insight into contracted work, centralizing systems engineering and integration, and nurturing a learning culture that continually benchmarks its performance against successful ventures. As this paper will explain, the SLS is making measurable progress toward becoming a global infrastructure asset for robotic and human scouts of all nations by harnessing business and technological innovations to deliver sustainable solutions for space exploration.

May, Todd↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Space Launch System: A Flagship for Exploration Beyond Earth's Orbit

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is making progress toward delivering a new capability for exploration beyond Earth orbit in an austere economic climate. This fact drives the SLS team to find innovative solutions to the challenges of designing, developing, fielding, and operating the largest rocket in history. To arrive at the current SLS plan, government and industry experts carefully analyzed hundreds of architecture options and arrived at the one clear solution to stringent requirements for safety, affordability, and sustainability over the decades that the rocket will be in operation. This paper will explore ways to fit this major development within the funding guidelines by using existing engine assets and hardware now in testing to meet a first launch by 2017. It will explain the SLS Program s long-range plan to keep the budget within bounds, yet evolve the 70 metric ton (t) initial lift capability to 130-t lift capability after the first two flights. To achieve the evolved configuration, advanced technologies must offer appropriate return on investment to be selected through a competitive process. For context, the SLS will be larger than the Saturn V that took 12 men on 6 trips for a total of 11 days on the lunar surface over 4 decades ago. Astronauts train for long-duration voyages on the International Space Station, but have not had transportation to go beyond Earth orbit in modern times, until now. NASA is refining its mission manifest, guided by U.S. Space Policy and the Global Exploration Roadmap. Launching the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle s (MPCV s) first autonomous certification flight in 2017, followed by a crewed flight in 2021, the SLS will offer a robust way to transport international crews and the air, water, food, and equipment they need for extended trips to asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. In addition, the SLS will accommodate high-priority science experiments. SLS affordability initiatives include streamlining interfaces, applying risk-based insight into contracted work, centralizing systems engineering and integration, and nurturing a learning culture that continually benchmarks its performance against successful ventures. As this paper will explain, the SLS is making measurable progress toward becoming a global infrastructure asset for robotic and human scouts of all nations by harnessing business and technological innovations to deliver sustainable solutions for space exploration.

May, Todd A.↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Space Launch System: Affordability for Sustainability

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is charged with delivering a new capability for human exploration beyond Earth orbit in an austere economic climate. But the SLS value is clear and codified in United States (U.S.) budget law. The SLS Program knows that affordability is the key to sustainability and will provide an overview of initiatives designed to fit within the funding guidelines by using existing engine assets and hardware now in testing to meet a first launch by 2017 within the projected budget. It also has a long-range plan to keep the budget flat, yet evolve the 70-tonne (t) initial lift capability to 130-t lift capability after the first two flights. To achieve the evolved configuration, advanced technologies must offer appropriate return on investment to be selected through the competitive process. For context, the SLS will be larger than the Saturn V that took 12 men on 6 trips for a total of 11 days on the lunar surface some 40 years ago. Astronauts train for long-duration voyages on platforms such as the International Space Station, but have not had transportation to go beyond Earth orbit in modern times, until now. To arrive at the launch vehicle concept, the SLS Program conducted internal engineering and business studies that have been externally validated by industry and reviewed by independent assessment panels. In parallel with SLS concept studies, NASA is now refining its mission manifest, guided by U.S. space policy and the Global Exploration Roadmap, which reflects the mutual goals of a dozen member nations. This mission planning will converge with a flexible heavy-lift rocket that can carry international crews and the air, water, food, and equipment they need for extended trips to asteroids and Mars. In addition, the SLS capability will accommodate very large science instruments and other payloads, using a series of modular fairings and adapters to configure the rocket for the mission. The SLS affordability plan includes streamlining interfaces, applying risk-based insight into contracted work, centralizing systems engineering and integration, and nurturing a learning culture where the question Why? is often asked and the answer "Because we've always done it that way" is rarely heard. The SLS Program will deliver affordable space transportation solutions for the Orion Multi-Purpose Cargo Vehicle s first autonomous certification flight in 2017, followed by a crewed flight in 2021. As this briefing will show, the SLS will offer a global infrastructure asset for robotic and human scouts of all nations.

May, Todd A.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Overview of the Landsat-7 Mission

Landsat-7 is scheduled for launch on April 15 from the Western Test Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on a Delta-H expendable launch vehicle. The Landsat 7 satellite consists of a spacecraft bus being provided by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (Valley Forge, Pa.) and the Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus instrument built by Raytheon (formerly Hughes) Santa Barbara Remote Sensing (Santa Barbara, Calif.). The instrument on board Landsat 7 is the Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+). ETM+ improves upon the previous Thematic Mapper (TM) instruments on Landsat's 4 and 5 (Fig. la and lb). It includes the previous 7 spectral bands measuring reflected solar radiation and emitted thermal emissions but, in addition, includes a new 15 in panchromatic (visible-near infrared) band. The spatial resolution of the thermal infrared band has also been improved to 60 m. Both the radiometric precision and accuracy of the sensor are also improved from the previous TM sensors. After being launched into a sun-synchronous polar orbit, the satellite will use on-board propulsion to adjust its orbit to a circular altitude of 438 miles (705 kilometers) crossing the equator at approximately 10 a.m. on its southward track. This orbit will place Landsat 7 along the same ground track as previous Landsat satellites. The orbit will be maintained with periodic adjustments for the life of the mission. A three-axis attitude control subsystem will stabilize the satellite and keep the instrument pointed toward the Earth to within 0.05 degrees. Later this year, plans call for the NASA Earth Observation System (EOS) Terra (AM-1) observatory and the experimental EO-1 mission to closely follow Landsat-7's orbit to support synergistic research and applications from this new suite of terrestrial sensor systems. Landsat is the United States' oldest land-surface observation satellite system, with satellites continuously operating since 1972. Although the program has scored numerous successes in scientific and resource-management applications, Landsat has had a tumultuous history of management and funding changes over its nearly 27-year history. Landsat-7 marks a new direction in the program to reduce the cost of data and increase systematic global coverage for use in global change research as well as commercial and regional applications. With the passage of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act in 1992, oversight of the Landsat program began to shift from the commercial sector to the federal government. NASA integrated Landsat-7 into its EOS science program in 1994. Landsat-7 is managed and operated jointly by NASA and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As a result, the costs of acquiring observations from

Williams, Darrel↗

NASA NTRS1992

Space Resources

Space resources must be used to support life on the Moon and exploration of Mars. Just as the pioneers applied the tools they brought with them to resources they found along the way rather than trying to haul all their needs over a long supply line, so too must space travelers apply their high technology tools to local resources. The pioneers refilled their water barrels at each river they forded; moonbase inhabitants may use chemical reactors to combine hydrogen brought from Earth with oxygen found in lunar soil to make their water. The pioneers sought temporary shelter under trees or in the lee of a cliff and built sod houses as their first homes on the new land; settlers of the Moon may seek out lava tubes for their shelter or cover space station modules with lunar regolith for radiation protection. The pioneers moved further west from their first settlements, using wagons they had built from local wood and pack animals they had raised; space explorers may use propellant made at a lunar base to take them on to Mars. The concept for this report was developed at a NASA-sponsored summer study in 1984. The program was held on the Scripps campus of the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). It was jointly managed under the California Space Inst. and the NASA Johnson Space Center, under the direction of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) at NASA Headquarters. The study participants (listed in the addendum) included a group of 18 university teachers and researchers (faculty fellows) who were present for the entire 10-week period and a larger group of attendees from universities, Government, and industry who came for a series of four 1-week workshops. The organization of this report follows that of the summer study. Space Resources consists of a brief overview and four detailed technical volumes: (1) Scenarios; (2) Energy, Power, and Transport; (3) Materials; (4) Social Concerns. Although many of the included papers got their impetus from workshop discussions, most have been written since then, thus allowing the authors to base new applications on established information and tested technology. All these papers have been updated to include the authors' current work. This overview, drafted by faculty fellow Jim Burke, describes the findings of the summer study, as participants explored the use of space resources in the development of future space activities and defined the necessary research and development that must precede the practical utilization of these resources. Space resources considered included lunar soil, oxygen derived from lunar soil, material retrieved from near-Earth asteroids, abundant sunlight, low gravity, and high vacuum. The study participants analyzed the direct use of these resources, the potential demand for products from them, the techniques for retrieving and processing space resources, the necessary infrastructure, and the economic tradeoffs. This is certainly not the first report to urge the utilization of space resources in the development of space activities. In fact, Space Resources may be seen as the third of a trilogy of NASA Special Publications reporting such ideas arising from similar studies. It has been preceded by Space Settlements: A Design Study (NASA SP-413) and Space Resources and Space Settlements (NASA SP-428). And other, contemporaneous reports have responded to the same themes. The National Commission on Space, led by Thomas Paine, in Pioneering the Space Frontier, and the NASA task force led by astronaut Sally Ride, in Leadership and America's Future in Space, also emphasize expansion of the space Infrastructure; more detailed exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids; an early start on the development of the technology necessary for using space resources; and systematic development of the skills necessary for long-term human presence in space. Our report does not represent any Government-authorized view or official NASA policy. NASA's official response to these challenging opportunities must be found in the reports of its Office of Exploration, which was established in 1987. That office's report, released in November 1989, of a 90-day study of possible plans for human exploration of the Moon and Mars is NASA's response to the new initiative proposed by President Bush on July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon: "First, for the coming decade, for the 1990s, Space Station Freedom, our critical next step in all our space endeavors. And next, for the new century, back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars." This report, Space Resources, offers substantiation for NASA's bid to carry out that new initiative.

McKay, Mary Fae↗

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↗