Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Technology readiness level”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 217 records · Page 12

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP): Advanced Methods in Strategic Analysis, Technology Forecasting and Long Term Planning for Human Exploration and Operations, Advanced Exploration Systems and Advanced Concepts

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center is expanding its current technology assessment methodologies. ACO is developing a framework called TAPP that uses a variety of methods, such as association mining and rule learning from data mining, structure development using a Technological Innovation System (TIS), and social network modeling to measure structural relationships. The role of ACO is to 1) produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for a variety of NASA's missions, 2) determine mission architecture feasibility and appropriateness to NASA's strategic plans, and 3) define a project in enough detail to establish an initial baseline capable of meeting mission objectives ACO's role supports the decision­-making process associated with the maturation of concepts for traveling through, living in, and understanding space. ACO performs concept studies and technology assessments to determine the degree of alignment between mission objectives and new technologies. The first step in technology assessment is to identify the current technology maturity in terms of a technology readiness level (TRL). The second step is to determine the difficulty associated with advancing a technology from one state to the next state. NASA has used TRLs since 1970 and ACO formalized them in 1995. The DoD, ESA, Oil & Gas, and DoE have adopted TRLs as a means to assess technology maturity. However, "with the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRL assessments have limitations, especially when considering [the] integration of complex systems." When performing the second step in a technology assessment, NASA requires that an Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2) method be utilized. NASA has used and developed or used a variety of methods to perform this step: Expert Opinion or Delphi Approach, Value Engineering or Value Stream, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for the Order of Prioritization by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and other multi­‐criteria decision-making methods. These methods can be labor-intensive, often contain cognitive or parochial bias, and do not consider the competing prioritization between mission architectures. Strategic Decision-Making (SDM) processes cannot be properly understood unless the context of the technology is understood. This makes assessing technological change particularly challenging due to the relationships "between incumbent technology and the incumbent (innovation) system in relation to the emerging technology and the emerging innovation system." The central idea in technology dynamics is to consider all activities that contribute to the development, diffusion, and use of innovations as system functions. Bergek defines system functions within a TIS to address what is actually happening and has a direct influence on the ultimate performance of the system and technology development. ACO uses similar metrics and is expanding these metrics to account for the structure and context of the technology. At NASA technology and strategy is strongly interrelated. NASA's Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan (SSTIP) prioritizes those technologies essential to the pursuit of NASA's missions and national interests. The SSTIP is strongly coupled with NASA's Technology Roadmaps to provide investment guidance during the next four years, within a twenty-year horizon. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.

Funaro, Gregory V.↗

The Habitable Worlds Observatory Technology Development Plan

The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) is NASA’s next large space telescope, selected by the 2020 Decadal Survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics to search for and characterize habitable exoplanets while enabling a broad range of transformative astrophysics. In August 2024, the HWO Technology Maturation Project Office (TMPO) was formed to begin exploring the HWO science, technology, and mission architectures toward a Mission Concept Review (MCR) at the end of the decade. A primary deliverable of this effort is a technology development plan that identifies critical technologies that enable the mission, defines a process for assessing the readiness of those technologies, and outlines a strategy for developing those technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 before the MCR. In this paper we summarize the HWO technology development plan which comprises three “tracks”: Coronagraph System technologies, Ultra-stable Telescope System technologies, and High-sensitivity Ultraviolet and Visible Instrumentation technologies. Each track has completed an initial assessment of technology gaps, prioritized the gaps for investment, and laid out development roadmaps to mature candidate technologies to close those gaps.

Matthew R Bolcar↗

A guide to performing CO 2 electrolysis in zero-gap electrolyzers

Recent advances in the technology readiness level (TRL) of low-temperature electrochemical CO 2 reduction (eCO2R) have demonstrated that the technology has potential for industrial deployment. However, industrial deployment of eCO2R still requires advances to reach cost parity with existing thermal catalytic pathways. Technoeconomic analysis of eCO2R suggests that research and development will require a decrease in both capital expenditures and operational expenditures to be cost competitive. Here, to decrease the capital expenditures of the system will require increasing the durability to >3 years, while decreasing the operational expenditures will require an increase in energy efficiency due to the cost of electricity being the driving operational cost of a unit.

Energy↗

Acoustophoretic Additive Manufacturing for Scalable 3D Battery Electrodes

This project focused on investigating two acoustic-based processing methods: a nozzle-based printhead and a chamber that map to two different battery electrode architectures: (1) a line-pattern electrode and (2) a grid-pattern electrode. These two parallel manufacturing and electrode geometry explorations were proposed for the project to understand the process space of acoustic-based manufacturing methods to fabricate patterned battery electrodes. This two-path exploration also allowed us to de-risk the overall project and not rely on a single process for creating patterned electrodes. This project consisted of six high-level tasks aimed at transitioning the concept of acoustic focusing for battery electrodes from a technology readiness level (TRL) of 1 to 3 by project conclusion. Overall, we believe we have developed a practical and high-impact processing method that is chemistry agnostic and suitable for large-area fabrication of both 3D LIBs and other functional material systems where structuring on the scale of tens of microns has the potential to break conventional bulk material trade-offs in performance. In the case of batteries for electric vehicles, structuring 3D LIBs with our acoustic process breaks traditional energy and power trade-offs observed with conventional flat battery packs.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

In Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFR) Technologies; New Challenges for Exploration

NASA's human exploration initiative poses great opportunity and great risk for manned missions to the Moon and Mars. Engineers and Scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) are continuing to evaluate current technologies for in situ resource-based exploration fabrication and repair applications. Several technologies to be addressed in this paper have technology readiness levels (TRLs) that are currently mature enough to pursue for exploration purposes. However, while many technologies offer promising applications, these technologies must be pulled along by the demands and applications of this great initiative. The In Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFR) Element will supply and push state of the art technologies for applications such as habitat structure development, in situ resource utilization for tool and part fabrication, and repair and non-destructive evaluation W E ) of common life support elements. As an overview of the ISFR Element, this paper will address rapid prototyping technologies, their applications, challenges, and near term advancements. This paper will also discuss the anticipated need to utilize in situ resources to produce replacement parts and fabricate repairs to vehicles, habitats, life support and quality of life elements. Overcoming the challenges of ISFR development will provide the Exploration initiative with state of the art technologies that reduce risk, and enhance supportability.

Bassler, Julie A.↗

Overview of NASA's Thermal Control System Development for Exploration Project

NASA's Constellation Program includes the Orion, Altair, and Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) project offices. The first two elements, Orion and Altair, are manned space vehicles while the third element is broader and includes several subelements including Rovers and a Lunar Habitat. The upcoming planned missions involving these systems and vehicles include several risks and design challenges. Due to the unique thermal environment, many of these risks and challenges are associated with the vehicles thermal control system. NASA s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) includes the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP). ETDP consists of several technology development projects. The project chartered with mitigating the aforementioned risks and design challenges is the Thermal Control System Development for Exploration Project. The risks and design challenges are addressed through a rigorous technology development process that culminates with an integrated thermal control system test. The resulting hardware typically has a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of approximately six. This paper summarizes the development efforts being performed by the technology development project. The development efforts involve heat acquisition and heat rejection hardware including radiators, heat exchangers, and evaporators. The project has also been developing advanced phase change material heat sinks and performing assessments for thermal control system fluids.

Stephan, Ryan A.↗

FY04 Advanced Life Support Architecture and Technology Studies: Mid-Year Presentation

Long-Term Objective: Identify optimal advanced life support system designs that meet existing and projected requirements for future human spaceflight missions. a) Include failure-tolerance, reliability, and safe-haven requirements. b) Compare designs based on multiple criteria including equivalent system mass (ESM), technology readiness level (TRL), simplicity, commonality, etc. c) Develop and evaluate new, more optimal, architecture concepts and technology applications.

Lange, Kevin↗

Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Advanced Near Net Shape Technology (ANNST) Method for Fabricating Stiffened Cylinders

Low Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and high levels of uncertainty make it challenging to develop cost estimates of new technologies in the R&D phase. It is however essential for NASA to understand the costs and benefits associated with novel concepts, in order to prioritize research investments and evaluate the potential for technology transfer and commercialization. This paper proposes a framework to perform a cost-benefit analysis of a technology in the R&D phase. This framework was developed and used to assess the Advanced Near Net Shape Technology (ANNST) manufacturing process for fabricating integrally stiffened cylinders. The ANNST method was compared with the conventional multi-piece metallic construction and composite processes for fabricating integrally stiffened cylinders. Following the definition of a case study for a cryogenic tank cylinder of specified geometry, data was gathered through interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), with particular focus placed on production costs and process complexity. This data served as the basis to produce process flowcharts and timelines, mass estimates, and rough order-of-magnitude cost and schedule estimates. The scalability of the results was subsequently investigated to understand the variability of the results based on tank size. Lastly, once costs and benefits were identified, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to assess the relative value of these achieved benefits for potential stakeholders. These preliminary, rough order-of-magnitude results predict a 46 to 58 percent reduction in production costs and a 7-percent reduction in weight over the conventional metallic manufacturing technique used in this study for comparison. Compared to the composite manufacturing technique, these results predict cost savings of 35 to 58 percent; however, the ANNST concept was heavier. In this study, the predicted return on investment of equipment required for the ANNST method was ten cryogenic tank barrels when compared with conventional metallic manufacturing. The AHP study results revealed that decreased final cylinder mass and improved quality assurance were the most valued benefits of cylinder manufacturing methods, therefore emphasizing the relevance of the benefits achieved with the ANNST process for future projects.

Ivanco, Marie L.↗

Carbothermal Reduction Demonstration: Laser Driven Reaction in a Thermal-Vacuum Environment and Project Status

Introduction: Lunar regolith is approximately 45% oxygen by mass. The majority of the oxygen is bound in silicate minerals. The carbothermal reduction process has been proven to be effective at removing oxygen from lunar regolith simulants [1]. The Carbothermal Reduction Demonstration (CaRD) project aims to increase the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of a combined solar concentrator and carbothermal reduction systemin order to demonstrate this technology on the lunar surface. The CaRD project is divided into two design cycles, a brass board and prototype. The status of both design cycles will be discussed, as well as concepts for how this technology can be applied to the Artemis program in the future. Brassboard Vacuum Test: For the brassboard demonstration, a 2 kW Nd-YAG laser was used to heat lunar regolith simulant within a carbothermal reactor developed by Sierra Space. The reactor was placed inside of a 15 ft thermal vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center. The resulting reaction products were analyzed using both a gas chromotograph and mass spectrometer provided by Kennedy Space Center. Thermal data was also collected. Prototype Design: For the prototype, the CaRD team will perform another thermal vacuum test at JSC using the same interfaces and assets developed for the brassboard but will test a new carbothermal reactor design that Sierra Space is developing through the Carbothermal Oxygen Production Reactor (COPR) Tipping Point project that will include a means to autonomously move regolith in and out of the reactor. In addition, a deployable solar concentrator is being developed by Glenn Research Center using mirrors produced by Carbon Mirror Applications. The solar concentrator will be used to deliver solar energy into a carbothermal reactor to melt regolith and extract oxygen. Avionics and software for the concentrator are being developed by Kennedy Space Center. Future Concepts: An ongoing task within the CaRD project is to update models that can be used to determine the mass, power, and size of In-Situ Resource Utilization concepts at various scales. These models can now be used to analyze alternatives for future applications based on the latest available data.

A J Paz↗

Carbothermal Reduction Demonstration (CaRD)

Introduction: Lunar regolith is approximately 45% oxygen by mass. The majority of the oxygen is bound in silicate minerals. The carbothermal reduction process has been proven to be effective at removing oxygen from lunar regolith simulants. The Carbothermal Reduction Demonstration (CaRD) project aims to increase the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of a combined solar concentrator and carbothermal reduction systemin order to demonstrate this technology on the lunar surface. The CaRD project is divided into two design cycles, a brass board and prototype. The status of both design cycles will be discussed, as well as concepts for how this technology can be applied to the Artemis program in the future. Brassboard Vacuum Test: For the brassboard demonstration, a 2 kW Nd-YAG laser was used to heat lunar regolith simulant within a carbothermal reactor developed by Sierra Space. The reactor was placed inside of a 15 ft thermal vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center. The resulting reaction products were analyzed using both a gas chromotograph and mass spectrometer provided by Kennedy Space Center. Thermal data was also collected. Prototype Design: For the prototype, the CaRD team will perform another thermal vacuum test at JSC using the same interfaces and assets developed for the brassboard but will test a new carbothermal reactor design that Sierra Space is developing through the Carbothermal Oxygen Production Reactor (COPR) Tipping Point project that will include a means to autonomously move regolith in and out of the reactor. In addition, a deployable solar concentrator is being developed by Glenn Research Center using mirrors produced by Carbon Mirror Applications. The solar concentrator will be used to deliver solar energy into a carbothermal reactor to melt regolith and extract oxygen. Avionics and software for the concentrator are being developed by Kennedy Space Center. Future Concepts: An ongoing task within the CaRD project is to update models that can be used to determine the mass, power, and size of In-Situ Resource Utilization concepts at various scales. These models can now be used to analyze alternatives for future applications based on the latest available data.

Aaron Paz↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

The Need for Technology Maturity of Any Advanced Capability to Achieve Better Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

Programs such as space transportation systems are developed and deployed only rarely, and they have long development schedules and large development and life cycle costs (LCC). They have not historically had their LCC predicted well and have only had an effort to control the DDT&E phase of the programs. One of the factors driving the predictability, and thus control, of the LCC of a program is the maturity of the technologies incorporated in the program. If the technologies incorporated are less mature (as measured by their Technology Readiness Level - TRL), then the LCC not only increases but the degree of increase is difficult to predict. Consequently, new programs avoid incorporating technologies unless they are quite mature, generally TRL greater than or equal to 7 (system prototype demonstrated in a space environment) to allow better predictability of the DDT&E phase costs unless there is no alternative. On the other hand, technology development programs rarely develop technologies beyond TRL 6 (system/subsystem model or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment). Currently the lack of development funds beyond TRL 6 and the major funding required for full scale development leave little or no funding available to prototype TRL 6 concepts so that hardware would be in the ready mode for safe, reliable and cost effective incorporation. The net effect is that each new program either incorporates little new technology or has longer development schedules and costs, and higher LCC, than planned. This paper presents methods to ensure that advanced technologies are incorporated into future programs while providing a greater accuracy of predicting their LCC. One method is having a dedicated organization to develop X-series vehicles or separate prototypes carried on other vehicles. The question of whether such an organization should be independent of NASA and/or have an independent funding source is discussed. Other methods are also discussed. How to make the choice of which technologies to pursue to the prototype level is also discussed since, to achieve better LCC, first the selection of the appropriate technologies.

Robinson, John W.↗

Reverse-Bias Resilience of Monolithic Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cells

Metal halide perovskites have rapidly enabled a range of high-performance photovoltaic technologies. However, catastrophic failure under reverse voltage bias hinders their commercialization. In this work, we demonstrate that by employing a monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem structure, the perovskite subcell can be effectively protected by the silicon subcell under reverse bias, owing to the low reverse-bias diode current of the silicon subcell. As a result, the tested perovskite/silicon tandem devices show superior reverse-bias resilience compared to perovskite single-junction devices in both long-term reverse voltage biasing tests at the single-cell level and partial shading tests at the module level. These results highlight that, compared to other perovskite technologies, monolithic perovskite/silicon tandems are at a higher technology readiness level in terms of tackling the reverse-bias and partial shading challenge, which is a considerable advantage towards commercialization.

commercialization↗

Additively Manufactured Low Cost Upper Stage Combustion Chamber

Over the past two years NASA's Low Cost Upper Stage Propulsion (LCUSP) project has developed Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies and design tools aimed at reducing the costs and manufacturing time of regeneratively cooled rocket engine components. High pressure/high temperature combustion chambers and nozzles must be regeneratively cooled to survive their operating environment, causing their design fabrication to be costly and time consuming due to the number of individual steps and different processes required. Under LCUSP, AM technologies in Sintered Laser Melting (SLM) GRCop-84 and Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication (EBF3) Inconel 625 have been significantly advanced, allowing the team to successfully fabricate a 25k-class regenerative chamber. Estimates of the costs and schedule of future builds indicate cost reductions and significant schedule reductions will be enabled by this technology. Characterization of the microstructural and mechanical properties of the SLM-produced GRCop-84, EBF3 Inconel 625 and the interface layer between the two has been performed and indicates the properties will meet the design requirements. The LCUSP chamber is to be tested with a previously demonstrated SLM injector in order to advance the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and demonstrate the capability of the application of these processes. NASA is advancing these technologies to reduce cost and schedule for future engine applications and commercial needs.

Protz, Christopher↗

Dust Solution Testing Initiative (DuSTI): Infusing Commercial Off the Shelf Dust Mitigation Technologies with NASA Practices

Dust is one of the most significant hazards to human lunar exploration. However, since the Apollo program concluded, limited research has been performed on lunar dust mitigation technologies. The safety of the crew members and sustainability of habitats, science, and supporting hardware depend on effective dust mitigation techniques and technologies. As NASA pursues a new generation of lunar missions with the Artemis program, the project team will pursue dust mitigation solutions with the Dust Solution Testing Initiative (DuSTI). DuSTI is a lunar dust mitigation effort that involves performing tests on commercial off the shelf (COTS) technologies over FY21. DuSTI will preform component and subsystem tests in dusty environments for up to five technologies with high potential. The specific technologies identified for study were selected based on several factors, including a market analysis of current terrestrial dust mitigation applications, availability of the technology, accessibility of various testing facilities, and cost of procurement. These technologies support the active and passive dust mitigation requirements of filtration systems, electro-mechanical systems, electro-static systems, surface coatings, textiles, and silicone polymers. Technology Readiness Level (TRL) will be increased by validating components in relevant environments. For example, if the COTS technology is at a TRL 9 for terrestrial use but at a 4-5 TRL for use in the lunar environment, we will test that technology in a lunar dust environment to increase the TRL for use on the Moon.

lunar dust↗

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗

Affordable In-Space Transportation Phase 2: An Advanced Concepts Project

The Affordable In-Space Transportation (AIST) program was established by the NASA Office of Space Access to improve transportation and lower the costs from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) and beyond (to Lunar orbit, Mars orbit, inner solar system missions, and return to LEO). A goal was established to identify and develop radically innovative concepts for new upper stages for Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV) and Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) systems. New architectures and technologies are being identified which have the potential to meet a cost goal of $1,000 to $2,000 per pound for transportation to GEO and beyond for overall mission cost (including the cost to LEO). A Technical Interchange Meeting (TTM) was held on October 16 and 17, 1996 in Huntsville, Alabama to review previous studies, present advanced concepts and review technologies that could be used to meet the stated goals. The TIN4 was managed by NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Concepts Office with Mr. Alan Adams providing TIM coordination. Mr. John C. Mankins of NASA Headquarters provided overall sponsorship. The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Propulsion Research Center hosted the TIM at the UAH Research Center. Dr. Clark Hawk, Center Director, was the principal investigator. Technical support was provided by Christensen Associates. Approximately 70 attendees were present at the meeting. This Executive Summary provides a record of the key discussions and results of the TIN4 in a summary for-mat. It incorporates the response to the following basic issues of the TDVL which addressed the following questions: 1. What are the cost drivers and how can they be reduced? 2. What are the operational issues and their impact on cost? 3. What is the current technology readiness level (TRL) and what will it take to reach TRL 6? 4. What are the key enabling technologies and sequence for their accomplishment? 5 . What is the proposed implementation time frame? See Appendix A for the TIM Agenda and Appendix C for the AIST Program Terms of Reference.

Source record↗