Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “technology procurement”

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.

190 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

The TPS Advanced Development Project for CEV

The CEV TPS Advanced Development Project (ADP) is a NASA in-house activity for providing two heatshield preliminary designs (a Lunar direct return as well as a LEO only return) for the CEV, including the TPS, the carrier structure, the interfaces and the attachments. The project s primary objective is the development of a single heatshield preliminary design that meets both Lunar direct return and LEO return requirements. The effort to develop the Lunar direct return capable heatshield is considered a high risk item for the NASA CEV development effort due to the low TRL (approx. 4) of the candidate TPS materials. By initiating the TPS ADP early in the development cycle, the intent is to use materials analysis and testing in combination with manufacturing demonstrations to reduce the programmatic risk of using advanced TPS technologies in the critical path for CEV. Due to the technical and schedule risks associated a Lunar return heatshield, the ADP will pursue a parallel path design approach, whereby a back-up TPS/heatshield design that only meets LEO return requirements is also developed. The TPS materials and carrier structure design concept selections will be based on testing, analysis, design and evaluation of scalability and manufacturing performed under the ADP. At the TPS PDR, the preferred programmatic strategy is to transfer the continued (detailed) design, development, testing and evaluation (DDT&E) of both the Lunar direct and LEO return designs to a government/prime contractor coordinated sub-system design team. The CEV prime contractor would have responsibility for the continued heatshield sub-system development. Continued government participation would include analysis, testing and evaluation as well as decision authority at TPS Final System Decision (FSD) (choosing between the primary and back-up heatshields) occurring between TPS PDR and TPS Critical Design Review (CDR). After TPS FSD the prime CEV contractor will complete the detailed design, certification testing, procurement, and integration of the CEV TPS.

Reuther, James↗
NASA NTRS2015

An Approach for Performance Based Glove Mobility Requirements

The Space Suit Assembly (SSA) Development Team at NASA Johnson Space Center has invested heavily in the advancement of rear‐entry planetary exploration suit design but largely deferred development of extravehicular activity (EVA) glove designs, and accepted the risk of using the current flight gloves, Phase VI, for exploration missions. However, as design reference missions mature, the risks of using heritage hardware have highlighted the need for developing robust new glove technologies. To address the technology gap, the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's Game‐Changing Development Program provided start‐up funding for the High Performance EVA Glove (HPEG) Element as part of the Next Generation Life Support (NGLS) Project in the fall of 2013. The overarching goal of the HPEG Element is to develop a robust glove design that increases human performance during EVA and creates pathway for implementation of emergent technologies, with specific aims of increasing pressurized mobility to 60% of barehanded capability, increasing the durability in on‐pristine environments, and decreasing the potential of gloves to cause injury during use. The HPEG Element focused initial efforts on developing quantifiable and repeatable methodologies for assessing glove performance with respect to mobility, injury potential, thermal conductivity, and abrasion resistance. The team used these methodologies to establish requirements against which emerging technologies and glove designs can be assessed at both the component and assembly levels. The mobility performance testing methodology was an early focus for the HPEG team as it stems from collaborations between the SSA Development team and the JSC Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) that began investigating new methods for suited mobility and fit early in the Constellation Program. The combined HPEG and ABF team used lessons learned from the previous efforts as well as additional reviews of methodologies in physical and occupational therapy arenas to develop a protocol that assesses gloved range of motion, strength, dexterity, tactility, and fit in comparative quantitative terms and also provides qualitative insight to direct hardware design iterations. The protocol was evaluated using five experienced test subjects wearing the EMU pressurized to 4.3psid with three different glove configurations. The results of the testing are presented to illustrate where the protocol is and is not valid for benchmark comparisons. The process for requirements development based upon the results is also presented along with suggested performance values for the High Performance EVA Gloves to be procured in fiscal year 2015.

Aitchison, Lindsay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (Heeet) and 3D Woven TPS Readiness for Outer Planet Probe Missions

Recent mission studies have shown entry at Uranus or at Neptune will require 3-D Woven TPS, either the two-layer HEEET or the single layer 3MDCP, with 3MDCP being more mass efficient. The 3MDCP capability being developed to support MSR EES is sufficient for the Ice Giants if the probe size is 1.25 m or less. [The Uranus Orbiter Probe (UOP) Flagship study for the Decadal used a 1.26m diameter probe.] For larger diameters, dual layer HEEET is easily scalable and is already at TRL 6. It is possible to develop a seam approach that would allow the use of 3MDCP; the resultant mass savings could warrant such a development. Ames is already working on a concept towards this. If aerocapture becomes part of the mission design for Uranus, delivery of the probe from orbit will be easier. Whether or not the probe is delivered from orbit, 3-D Woven (HEEET or 3MDCP) is the only TPS qualified to enable Ice Giant in situ probes. In addition to UOP, Saturn probe mission concepts will be enabled by 3-D Woven, either HEEET or 3MDCP. Launch periods for the UOP flagship or a Saturn probe mission in the early to mid 2030s requires the community to ensure that the 3D woven capability does not atrophy. Currently other than MSR EES, no other mission requires 3-D wovens, and the manufacturing for MSR will be completed by 2023. A gap in production of 5 or more years requires careful monitoring of the industrial base. In addition, manufacturing of 3-D woven TPS, from procurement and weaving to molding and infusion, is a minimum 2-year activity. In response to the threat of atrophy and the time critical and intensive nature of restarting weaving, advocacy from OPAG to NASA SMD for a sustainability effort would ensure in situ exploration of the outer planets in the decades to come.

M Gasch↗
NASA NTRS2021

Propellant Delivery via VDC Driven Pump

The SMART (Scalable Mobile Autonomous Rocket engine Test) testbed system initiative at SSC was conceived to attempt to address many of the principal cost drivers in developing and maintaining a rocket engine test facility. The system (optimized to test engines and components generating up to 10K lbf nominal thrust) is serving as a testbed for innovative technologies and processes to provide lower cost test services with a rapid test cadence and expedient turnaround times. The system can also potentially be used as a testbed to test other related technologies relevant to surface situations (e.g., moon, Mars associated with crogenic fluid management, engine/component testing, autonomous operations, etc.). This FY20 CIF project, being conducted as part of the SMART testbed system, is developing and testing a propellant delivery system via electrically driven centrifugal pumps (obviating dependence upon Multi-Layer Pressure Vessels) with configuration and operation by a minimal number of personnel. During FY20 the team identified the requirements and worked with P3 and Masten Space Systems to develop the long lead (9 months after receipt of order) items, the 400 VDC pumps, for delivery in mid FY21. Since control of the 400 VDC pump motor is not well developed the team has established heuristics to control flows in LN2 at off nominal shaft speeds to allow deep throttling of the pump in flow test scenarios. Various test scenarios including nominal i.e. high flow high pressure, high flow low pressure, low flow high pressure, low flow low pressure, minimum throttle step change, and low inlet pressure cavitation testing were developed ahead of the anticipated hardware delivery and test. FY20 COVID Stage 3 conditions restricted access to the center and hindered lab work, so efforts focused on the system design and testing plans along with the project procurement paperwork for the hardware... now with its anticipated delivery in spring FY21. Some limited access to the center is expected by spring/summer FY21 for the continuing second year (FY21) CIF project effort meant to be focused upon system integration and initial testing.

Aaron Head↗
NASA NTRS2016

Solar Array (Radiated/Non-Radiated): Materials Characterization and Cryogenic Thermal Cycling Qualification for the Planned Europa Clipper Mission (ECM)

Two special instruments were custom built for our critical study and manufactured and employed to test the SA materials of interest to cryogenic temperature conditions. We have procured custom manufactured two independent systems such as Thermo -Mechanical Analyzer (TMA) with Three Point Bend Probe (TPBP) module and Dilatometer. TMA can be used to measure Young’ s modulus or elastic modulus (e -modulus). Dilatometer can be used to measure Co -efficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE). We have optimized the materials configuration to measure physical properties of radiated and non -radiated materials for CTE and e -modulus, which will be useful to assess materials and processes reliability for cryogenic temperature applications. We have successfully implemented for some materials that are of interest to solar panels for the planned ECM project to measure CTE and Young's modulus. Also a separate study was undertaken to thermal cycle qualify SAs for ECM project. One can do thermal cycling to temperatures of 50 K and 133 K using liquid Helium (Lq He). This is in reality exorbitantly too expensive and is also inefficient. Furthermore, this is not technically controllable test to 133 K and 50 K temperatures. This is also too expensive to accomplish. Therefore, a vacuum set -up was made along with a cryostat successfully. This is a closed loop system where we do not lose the Helium gas. We were able to get to 35 K for a given test coupon size. These temperatures are lower than what we would intend to qualify the solar array technologies. This will allow to have some margin at cold temperatures. We successfully completed the qualification of solar array technologies down to 50 K temperatures. This is the first time we are reporting this accomplishment. In this paper, we will present the solar array materials properties for cryogenic temperatures down to 20 K temperatures and the thermal cycling qualification test results from 133 K to 50 K for three times the mission life of 120 thermal cycles to meet JPL Design.

Ramesham, Rajeshuni↗
NASA NTRS1999

NASA Historical Data Book: NASA Launch Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight and Space Science, 1979-1988 - Volume 5

In 1973, NASA published the first volume of the NASA Historical Data Book, a hefty tome containing mostly tabular data on the resources of the space agency between 1958 and 1968. There, broken into detailed tables, were the facts and figures associated with the budget, facilities, procurement, installations, and personnel of NASA during that formative decade. In 1988, NASA reissued that first volume of the data book and added two additional volumes on the agency's programs and projects, one each for 1958-1968 and 1969-1978. NASA published a fourth volume in 1994 that addressed NASA resources for the period between 1969 and 1978. This fifth volume of the NASA Historical Data Book is a continuation of those earlier efforts. This fundamental reference tool presents information, much of it statistical, documenting the development of four critical areas of NASA responsibility for the period between 1979 and 1988. This volume includes detailed information on the development and operation of launch systems, space transportation, human spaceflight, and space science during this era. As such, it contains in-depth statistical information about the early Space Shuttle program through the return to flight in 1988, the early efforts to build a space station, the development of new launch systems, and the launching of seventeen space science missions. A companion volume will appear late in 1999, documenting the space applications, support operations, aeronautics, and resources aspects of NASA during the period between 1979 and 1988. NASA began its operations as the nation's civilian space agency in 1958 following the passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act. It succeeded the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The new organization was charged with preserving the role of the United States "as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology" and in its application, with expanding our knowledge of the Earth's atmosphere and space, and with exploring flight both within and outside the atmosphere. By the 1980s, NASA had established itself as an agency with considerable achievements on record. The decade was marked by the inauguration of the Space Shuttle flights and haunted by the 1986 Challenger accident that temporarily halted the program. The agency also enjoyed the strong support of President Ronald Reagan, who enthusiastically announced the start of both the Space Station program and the National Aerospace Plane program.

Rumerman, Judy A.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Panel to review EOSDIS plans

Formed in Jan. 1992, the Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans was charged with advising NASA on its plans for developing the Earth Observing System (EOS) Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Specifically, the panel was asked to do the following: assess the validity of the engineering and technical underpinnings of the EOSDIS; assess its potential value to scientific users; suggest how technical risk can be minimized; and assess whether current plans are sufficiently resilient to be adaptable to changing technology and requirements such as budget environments, data volumes, new users, and new databases. The panel completed an interim report (Addendum A) and transmitted it to NASA and other interested parties in the government on 9 Apr. 1992. Because of a delay in NASA's plans to select the contractor for EOSDIS, the panel was not able to complete its review of the program according to the original government request. With the issuance of a letter report (Addendum B) on 28 Sep. 1992, the panel became inactive until such time as NASA could release the details of the contractor's proposed architecture, schedule, and costs for developing EOSDIS. In early 1993, NASA awarded the contract for the EOSDIS Core System (ECS). On 20 Apr. 1993, NASA asked the panel to reconvene to do the following: ( 1) complete its review of NASA's approach to the EOSDIS architecture and implementation; (2) appraise NASA's responses to the panel's previous recommendations; and (3) review the planning for EOSDIS in the context of NASA's role in the Global Change Data and Information System (GCDIS) implementation plan. To respond to the NASA charge, the panel met three times in 1993 including sessions with NASA officials and the EOSDIS contractor. In addition, several of the panel members visited individual Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAAC's) to obtain additional views of EOSDIS. The panel has now obtained substantial information on the EOSDIS budget, contractor work program, and current baseline architecture that was not previously available, due to procurement restrictions. This report presents the panel's findings and recommendations based on this additional information.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission Space Suit and EVA System Maturation

The Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) requires a Launch/Entry/Abort (LEA) suit capability and short duration Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) capability from the Orion spacecraft. For this mission, the pressure garment that was selected, for both functions, is the Modified Advanced Crew Escape Suit (MACES) with EVA enhancements and the life support option that was selected is the Exploration Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The proposed architecture was found to meet the mission constraints, but much more work is required to determine the details of the required suit upgrades, the integration with the PLSS, and the rest of the tools and equipment required to accomplish the mission. This work has continued over the last year to better define the operations and hardware maturation of these systems. EVA simulations have been completed in the NBL and interfacing options have been prototyped and analyzed with testing planned for late 2014. For NBL EVA simulations, in 2013, components were procured to allow in-house build up for four new suits with mobility enhancements built into the arms. Boots outfitted with clips that fit into foot restraints have also been added to the suit and analyzed for possible loads. Major suit objectives accomplished this year in testing include: evaluation of mobility enhancements, ingress/egress of foot restraint, use of foot restraint for worksite stability, ingress/egress of Orion hatch with PLSS mockup, and testing with two crew members in the water at one time to evaluate the crew's ability to help one another. Major tool objectives accomplished this year include using various other methods for worksite stability, testing new methods for asteroid geologic sampling and improving the fidelity of the mockups and crew equipment. These tests were completed on a medium fidelity capsule mockup, asteroid vehicle mockup, and asteroid mockups that were more accurate for an asteroid type EVA than previous tests. Another focus was the design and fabrication of the interface between the MACES and the PLSS. The MACES was not designed to interface with a PLSS, hence an interface kit must accommodate the unique design qualities of the MACES and provide the necessary life support function connections to the PLSS. A prototype interface kit for MACES to PLSS has been designed and fabricated. Unmanned and manned testing of the interface will show the usability of the kit while wearing a MACES. The testing shows viability of the kit approach as well as the operations concept. The design will be vetted through suit and PLSS experts and, with the findings from the testing, the best path forward will be determined. As the Asteroid Redirect Mission matures, the suit/life support portion of the mission will mature along with it and EVA Tools & Equipment can be iterated to accommodate the overall mission objectives and compromises inherent in EVA Suit optimization. The goal of the EVA architecture for ARCM is to continue to build on the previously developed technologies and lessons learned, and accomplish the ARCM EVAs while providing a stepping stone to future missions and destinations.

Bowie, Jonathan T.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Alternative Architectures for Cargo Lunar Landers

NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program has been working with commercial partners to develop human-class lunar landers to return the first American woman and next American man to the lunar surface in the mid 2020’s. In an effort to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, NASA’s Artemis program aims to facilitate a sustainable, long-term human presence in cis-lunar space. A component of this will require significant infrastructure to be delivered to the lunar surface. Delivering this infrastructure will require a significant lander capability that has yet to be developed. A thorough understanding of cargo lunar lander architectures is required such that select alternatives can be identified that best support the Artemis program’s objective of sustainability. The goal of this study is to aid NASA and its partners in the understanding of the cargo lunar lander trades space, as well as identify potential robust alternatives. The results will support NASA as it moves forward with key activities such as requirements formulation, agency strategic planning, and potential cargo lunar lander procurements. The study builds off of recent work performed by the Human Landing System program’s Architecture and Systems Analysis group to encompass a broad trade space of cargo lunar lander architecture alternatives. The current trade space as depicted by the morphological matrix and mission graph in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, includes key alternative options that have become highly relevant due to current HLS activities and include on-orbit refueling, active cryogenic fluid management, Earth orbit aggregation, and global lunar access. The authors believe that there is also a statistically relevant impact of lander-payload configuration on the primary structure of the vehicle that could greatly impact alternative selection. Because of this, several conceptual lander-payload configurations will be evaluated to determine the level of impact. The current set of conceptual configurations are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. To aid the conceptual evaluation of these configurations, a catalogue of notional payloads has been developed that represent a wide range of masses and volumes that are expected to be delivered in support of a sustained human lunar presence, including pressurized and unpressurized rovers, surface habitats, power systems, and other support infrastructure. In order to execute this study in a timely fashion, a similar approach to that utilized in a similar 2019 study focused on 2024 human lunar sorties will be employed [1]. The team utilized a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC to evaluate over 600,000 lunar lander architectures over a two month time frame [2]. From this large data set, varying ground rules and assumptions were applied as filters to explore the trade space to identify alternatives which exhibited robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The set of Earth-Moon system Delta-Vs assumed from the 2019 study, shown in Fig. 5, will be repurposed to accelerate model formulation for this effort. Additionally, current efforts in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace System Design Lab will be integrated to provide probabilistic modeling of the cargo lunar lander architectures to aid in identifying robust design alternatives [3]. The approach will help minimize potential impacts due to large levels of uncertainty inherent to pre phase-A conceptual design. By leveraging these past and present studies and partnerships, a highly detailed set of data can be generated in a short time period to aid NASA in the coming years to support the goal of a sustained human lunar presence.

Architectures↗