Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk Acceptance”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Results of a 3-day Pilot Study to Validate Planetary Prebreathe Protocols Using a 56.5 kPa 34% O2, 66% N2 Saturation Cabin Atmosphere

INTRODUCTION: Apollo missions used 100% O2 cabin atmospheres which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activities (EVAs, ‘spacewalks’); however, this atmosphere presented a flammability risk that is no longer acceptable to NASA. Denitrogenation prebreathe protocols used to mitigate DCS risk for Space Shuttle and International Space Station EVAs are validated for the microgravity environment, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory surface EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary/Lunar missions. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA for future Moon and Mars missions as a compromise that balances subsequent pre-EVA prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. Prebreathe validation studies was initiated utilizing a three-story 6m diameter hypobaric chamber at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Here, we report the results of a 3-day human-in-the-loop system checkout. METHODS: Six volunteers acclimated to the 56.6kPa/34% O2 66% N2 environment for 48hrs prior to conducting a 20-minute prebreathe and a 6-hour simulated EVA at 34kPa/85% O2 / 15% N2. The EVA simulation was designed to include tasks that are physically and ergonomically representative of future planetary EVAs. Decompression stress was evaluated by serial doppler and echocardiographs, as well as by clinical features of DCS signs/symptoms. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Preliminary data analysis noted venous gas emboli (VGE) in 3 of 6 subjects, with peak Grade II VGE by Doppler and peak E-B score of 5 by cardiac ultrasonography. No volunteers were diagnosed with DCS during this initial test. No acute hypoxic symptoms were noted. Musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal complaints were noted, likely associated with the exercise load and the food system. Validation of exploration prebreathe protocols has since been initiated with an 11-day saturation test using the same facility and protocol.

Alejandro Garbino↗
NASA NTRS2010

LCROSS: A High Return, Small Satellite Mission

Early in 2006, the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) held a competition for NASA Centers to propose innovative ideas for a secondary payload mission to launch with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to the Moon. The successful proposal could cost no more than $80 million dollars (less was preferred), would have to be ready to launch with the LRO in 31 months, could weigh no more than 1000 kg (fuelled), and would be designated a risk-tolerant "Class D" mission. In effect, NASA was offering a fixed-price contract to the winning NASA team to stay within a cost and schedule cap by accepting an unusually elevated risk position. To address this Announcement of Opportunity to develop a cost-and-schedule-capped secondary payload mission to fly with LRO, NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in Moffett Field, CA, USA embarked on a brainstorming effort termed "Blue Ice" in which a small team was asked to explore a number of mission scenarios that might have a good chance for success and still fit within the stated programmatic constraints. From this work, ARC developed and submitted six of the nineteen mission proposals received by ESMD from throughout the Agency, one of which was LCROSS - a collaborative effort between ARC and its industrial partner, Northrop-Grumman (NG) in Redondo Beach, CA, USA.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation Exposure

Occupational radiation exposure from the space environment may result in non-cancer or non-CNS degenerative tissue diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cataracts, and respiratory or digestive diseases. However, the magnitude of influence and mechanisms of action of radiation leading to these diseases are not well characterized. Radiation and synergistic effects of radiation cause DNA damage, persistent oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and accelerated tissue aging and degeneration, which may lead to acute or chronic disease of susceptible organ tissues. In particular, cardiovascular pathologies such as atherosclerosis are of major concern following gamma-ray exposure. This provides evidence for possible degenerative tissue effects following exposures to ionizing radiation in the form of the GCR or SPEs expected during long-duration spaceflight. However, the existence of low dose thresholds and dose-rate and radiation quality effects, as well as mechanisms and major risk pathways, are not well-characterized. Degenerative disease risks are difficult to assess because multiple factors, including radiation, are believed to play a role in the etiology of the diseases. As additional evidence is pointing to lower, space-relevant thresholds for these degenerative effects, particularly for cardiovascular disease, additional research with cell and animal studies is required to quantify the magnitude of this risk, understand mechanisms, and determine if additional protection strategies are required.The NASA PEL (Permissive Exposure Limit)s for cataract and cardiovascular risks are based on existing human epidemiology data. Although animal and clinical astronaut data show a significant increase in cataracts following exposure and a reassessment of atomic bomb (A-bomb) data suggests an increase in cardiovascular disease from radiation exposure, additional research is required to fully understand and quantify these adverse outcomes at lower doses (less than 0.5 gray (SI unit for ionizing radiation dosage, i.e. one joule of radiation energy per one kilogram of matter)) to facilitate risk prediction. This risk has considerable uncertainty associated with it, and no acceptable model for projecting degenerative tissue risk is currently available. In particular, risk factors such as obesity, alcohol, and tobacco use can act as confounding factors that contribute to the large uncertainties. The PELs could be violated under certain scenarios, including following a large SPE (solar proton event) or long-term GCR (galactic cosmic ray) exposure. Specifically, for a Mars mission, the accumulated dose is sufficiently high that epidemiology data and preliminary risk estimates suggest a significant risk for cardiovascular disease. Ongoing research in this area is intended to provide the evidence base for accurate risk quantification to determine criticality for extended duration missions. Data specific to the space radiation environment must be compiled to quantify the magnitude of this risk to decrease the uncertainty in current PELs and to determine if additional protection strategies are required. New research results could lead to estimates of cumulative radiation risk from CNS and degenerative tissue diseases that, when combined with the cancer risk, may have major negative impacts on mission design, costs, schedule, and crew selection. The current report amends an earlier report (Human Research Program Requirements Document, HRP-47052, Rev. C, dated Jan 2009) in order to provide an update of evidence since 2009.

Patel, Zarana↗
NASA NTRS2001

Polymer Matrix Composite Material Oxygen Compatibility

Carbon fiber/polymer matrix composite materials look promising as a material to construct liquid oxygen (LOX) tanks. Based on mechanical impact tests the risk will be greater than aluminum, however, the risk can probably be managed to an acceptable level. Proper tank design and operation can minimize risk. A risk assessment (hazard analysis) will be used to determine the overall acceptability for using polymer matrix composite materials.

Owens, Tom↗
NASA NTRS2006

Space Life Sciences at NASA: Spaceflight Health Policy and Standards

In January 2005, the President proposed a new initiative, the Vision for Space Exploration. To accomplish the goals within the vision for space exploration, physicians and researchers at Johnson Space Center are establishing spaceflight health standards. These standards include fitness for duty criteria (FFD), permissible exposure limits (PELs), and permissible outcome limits (POLs). POLs delineate an acceptable maximum decrement or change in a physiological or behavioral parameter, as the result of exposure to the space environment. For example cardiovascular fitness for duty standards might be a measurable clinical parameter minimum that allows successful performance of all required duties. An example of a permissible exposure limit for radiation might be the quantifiable limit of exposure over a given length of time (e.g. life time radiation exposure). An example of a permissible outcome limit might be the length of microgravity exposure that would minimize bone loss. The purpose of spaceflight health standards is to promote operational and vehicle design requirements, aid in medical decision making during space missions, and guide the development of countermeasures. Standards will be based on scientific and clinical evidence including research findings, lessons learned from previous space missions, studies conducted in space analog environments, current standards of medical practices, risk management data, and expert recommendations. To focus the research community on the needs for exploration missions, NASA has developed the Bioastronautics Roadmap. The Bioastronautics Roadmap, NASA's approach to identification of risks to human space flight, revised baseline was released in February 2005. This document was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine in November 2004 and the final report was received in October 2005. The roadmap defines the most important research and operational needs that will be used to set policy, standards (define acceptable risk), and implement an overall Risk Management and Analysis process. Currently NASA is drafting spaceflight health standards for neurosensory alterations, space radiation exposure, behavioral health, muscle atrophy, cardiovascular fitness, immunological compromise, bone demineralization, and nutrition.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Resource Prospector (RP): A Cost-Effective Lunar Resource Pathfinder

Resource Prospector (RP) is an in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology demonstration mission under study by the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates (HEOMD). This clever mission is currently planned to launch in 2020 and will demonstrate extraction of oxygen, water and other volatiles, as well measure mineralogical content such as silicon and light metals, like aluminum and titanium, from lunar regolith. Expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars will require the maximum possible use of local materials, so-called in-situ resources, and the moon presents a unique destination to conduct robotic investigations that advance ISRU capabilities, as well as providing significant exploration and science value. This mission is equally important; however, for how it executes as a risk-tolerant, cost-effective mission. RP follows on the path-finding approaches of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission. The LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of water-ice on the moon, but also established a new lightweight-approach to project and mission execution which was considerably cheaper and faster than traditional NASA missions. RP has been designated as a Class D mission, just as LCROSS. This mission classification is the most risk-tolerant class of mission within the NASA risk framework and as such, is given more latitude to accept higher-levels of residual risk. The intention is that by saving monies normally spent attempting to assure a single missions success, more missions can be funded. A well-designed portfolio can accept occasional mission failure, as it still gets more done for the same investment of resources. This classification enables tailoring the NASA Policy Requirements (NPRs) to lighter-weight approaches to mission management and execution. RP is also studying both international and commercial partnerships as a means to maximize return on the investment. International partnerships provide both capabilities synergies and cost-sharing opportunities, while the evolving new space commercial options are revealing new approaches to acquiring cost-effective services, including the benefits of bundling services. Even the world of launch vehicles is changing, offering much less expensive access to space, especially if NASA is able to be flexible in how it approaches mission assurance. Finally, leveraging investments being made elsewhere within a program portfolio, can enable cost-savings by enabling two applications with one investment. RP will be the next pathfinder mission to both enable exploration capabilities for future missions, and continue to evolve cost-effective approaches for NASA.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRS2013

Microbial Monitoring of the International Space Station

Humans living and working in the harsh environment of space present many challenges for habitability engineers and microbiologists. Spacecraft must provide an internal environment in which physical (gas composition, pressure, temperature, and humidity), chemical, and biological environmental parameters are maintained at safe levels. Microorganisms are ubiquitous and will accompany all human-occupied spacecraft, but if biological contamination were to reach unacceptable levels, long-term human space flight would be impossible. Prevention of microbiological problems, therefore, must have a high priority. Historically, prevention of infectious disease in the crew has been the highest priority, but experience gained from the NASA-Mir program showed that microbial contamination of vehicle and life-support systems, such as biofouling of water and food, are of equal importance. The major sources of microbiological risk factors for astronauts include food, drinking water, air, surfaces, payloads, research animals, crew members, and personnel in close contact with the astronauts. In our efforts to eliminate or mitigate the negative effects of microorganisms in spacecraft, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) implemented comprehensive microbial analyses of the major risk factors. This included the establishment of acceptability requirements for food, water, air, surfaces, and crew members. A robust monitoring program was then implemented to verify that the risks were within acceptable limits. Prevention of microbiological problems is preferred over mitigation of problems during flight, and preventive steps must begin very early in the design phase. Spacecraft development must include requirements to control free water from humidity, condensate, hygiene activities, and other releases. If water is available, microbes are likely to grow because sufficient nutrients are potentially available. Materials selected for the spacecraft must not promote or support microbial growth. Air filtration can dramatically reduce the number of airborne bacteria, fungi, and particulates in spacecraft breathing air. Waterborne bacteria can be reduced to acceptable levels by thermal inactivation of bacteria during water processing, along with a residual biocide, and filtration at the point of use can ensure safety. System design must include onboard capability to achieve recovery of the system from contamination. Robust housekeeping procedures that include periodic cleaning and disinfection will prevent high levels of microbial growth on surfaces. Food for consumption in space must be thoroughly tested for excessive microbial content and pathogens before launch. Thorough preflight examination of flight crews, consumables, payloads, and the environment can greatly reduce pathogens in spacecraft. Many of the lessons learned from the Space Shuttle and previous programs were applied in the early design phase of the International Space Station, resulting in the safest space habitat to date. This presentation describes the monitoring program for the International Space Station and will summarize results from preflight and on-orbit monitoring.

Pierson, Duane L.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Environmental effects consideration: A case study - Lessons learned

This paper discusses the importance for serious consideration of environmental effects and associated risks by management early in the development cycle of a facility. A case study on the Space Shuttle provides information with regard to some of the environmental effects issues encountered and the lesson learned. The importance of early management action to enable the acceptance of known environmental risks, or to make program adjustments to avoid their potential consequences, is emphasized.

Vaughan, William W.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Bridging the Divide between Safety and Risk Management for your Project or Program

This presentation will bridge the divide between these separate but overlapping disciplines and help explain how to use Risk Management as an effective management decision support tool that includes safety. Risk Management is an over arching communication tool used by management to prioritize and effectively mitigate potential problems before they concur. Risk Management encompasses every kind of potential problem that can occur on a program or project. Some of these are safety issues such as hazards that have a specific likelihood and consequence that need to be controlled and included to show an integrated picture of accepted) mitigated, and residual risk. Integrating safety and other assurance disciplines is paramount to accurately representing a program s or projects risk posture. Risk is made up of several components such as technical) cost, schedule, or supportability. Safety should also be a consideration for every risk. The safety component can also have an impact on the technical, cost, and schedule aspect of a given risk. The current formats used for communication of safety and risk issues are not consistent or integrated. The presentation will explore the history of these disciplines, current work to integrate them, and suggestions for integration for the future.

Lutomski, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the Research Plans for The Risk of Decompression Sickness and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations, as well as the Evidence Reports for both of these Risks. The SRP found that the NASA DCS/EVA team did an excellent job of presenting their research plans. The SRP considers it critical that NASA proceeds with the high priority tasks identified in this report (DCS1, DCS3, DCS5). The highest priority is to determine the acceptable DCS and hypoxia risk associated with the planned human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The risk of DCS is highly dependent upon the pressure within the exploration vehicle. If slightly more hypoxia is permitted then (even with the same percentage of oxygen) the pressure within the exploration vehicle can be lowered thus further mitigating the risk of DCS. The second highest priority is to test and validate the recommended 8.2psi/34% O2 atmosphere. Development of procedures and equipment for human exploration missions are very limited until the results of this testing are completed. The SRP also suggests that DCS7 be separated into two Gaps. Gap DCS7 should deal with DCS treatment while a new Gap should be created to deal with the long-term effects of DCS. The SRP also encourages NASA to increase collaboration with other organizations and pool resources where possible. The current NASA DCS/EVA team has the extensive expertise and a wealth of knowledge in this area. The SRP suggests that increased manpower for this team would be highly productive.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2000

Ground Data System Risk Mitigation Techniques for Faster, Better, Cheaper Missions

With the advent of faster, cheaper, and better missions, NASA Projects acknowledged that a higher level of risk was inherent and accepted with this approach. It was incumbent however upon each component of the Project whether spacecraft, payload, launch vehicle, or ground data system to ensure that the mission would nevertheless be an unqualified success. The Small Explorer (SMEX) program's ground data system (GDS) team developed risk mitigation techniques to achieve these goals starting in 1989. These techniques have evolved through the SMEX series of missions and are practiced today under the Triana program. These techniques are: (1) Mission Team Organization--empowerment of a closeknit ground data system team comprising system engineering, software engineering, testing, and flight operations personnel; (2) Common Spacecraft Test and Operational Control System--utilization of the pre-launch spacecraft integration system as the post-launch ground data system on-orbit command and control system; (3) Utilization of operations personnel in pre-launch testing--making the flight operations team an integrated member of the spacecraft testing activities at the beginning of the spacecraft fabrication phase; (4) Consolidated Test Team--combined system, mission readiness and operations testing to optimize test opportunities with the ground system and spacecraft; and (5). Reuse of Spacecraft, Systems and People--reuse of people, software and on-orbit spacecraft throughout the SMEX mission series. The SMEX ground system development approach for faster, cheaper, better missions has been very successful. This paper will discuss these risk management techniques in the areas of ground data system design, implementation, test, and operational readiness.

Catena, John J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

The NASA Continuous Risk Management Process

As an intern this summer in the GRC Risk Management Office, I have become familiar with the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process. In this process, risk is considered in terms of the probability that an undesired event will occur and the impact of the event, should it occur (ref., NASA-NPG: 7120.5). Risk management belongs in every part of every project and should be ongoing from start to finish. Another key point is that a risk is not a problem until it has happened. With that in mind, there is a six step cycle for continuous risk management that prevents risks from becoming problems. The steps are: identify, analyze, plan, track, control, and communicate & document. Incorporated in the first step are several methods to identify risks such as brainstorming and using lessons learned. Once a risk is identified, a risk statement is made on a risk information sheet consisting of a single condition and one or more consequences. There can also be a context section where the risk is explained in more detail. Additionally there are three main goals of analyzing a risk, which are evaluate, classify, and prioritize. Here is where a value is given to the attributes of a risk &e., probability, impact, and timeframe) based on a multi-level classification system (e.g., low, medium, high). It is important to keep in mind that the definitions of these levels are probably different for each project. Furthermore the risks can be combined into groups. Then, the risks are prioritized to see what risk is necessary to mitigate first. After the risks are analyzed, a plan is made to mitigate as many risks as feasible. Each risk should be assigned to someone in the project with knowledge in the area of the risk. Then the possible approaches to choose from are: research, accept, watch, or mitigate. Next, all risks, mitigated or not, are tracked either individually or in groups. As the plan is executed, risks are re-evaluated, and the attribute values are adjusted as necessary. Metrics are established and monitored as tools for risk tracking. Also a trigger or threshold should be set on the metric data that indicates when an action is needed. Results of this tracking are usually evaluated and reported in a relevant format at weekly or monthly meetings. Choosing controls is the subsequent step, which involves the effects of the tracking. The three basic controls are: close, continue tracking, and re- plan. Finally communicate & document is the last step, but occurs throughout the process. It is vital that main risks, plans, changes, and progress are known by everyone in the project. A good way to keep everyone updated and inform other projects of common issues is by thoroughly documenting project risks. NASA sees value in risk management and believes that projects have greater probability or success by using the NASA Continuous Risk Management Process.

Pokorny, Frank M.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Engineering risk reduction in satellite programs

Methods developed in planning and executing system safety engineering programs for Lockheed satellite integration contracts are presented. These procedures establish the applicable safety design criteria, document design compliance and assess the residual risks where non-compliant design is proposed, and provide for hazard analysis of system level test, handling and launch preparations. Operations hazard analysis identifies product protection and product liability hazards prior to the preparation of operational procedures and provides safety requirements for inclusion in them. The method developed for documenting all residual hazards for the attention of program management assures an acceptable minimum level of risk prior to program deployment. The results are significant for persons responsible for managing or engineering the deployment and production of complex high cost equipment under current product liability law and cost/time constraints, have a responsibility to minimize the possibility of an accident, and should have documentation to provide a defense in a product liability suit.

Dean, E. S., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA Occupant Protection Standards Development

Historically, spacecraft landing systems have been tested with human volunteers, because analytical methods for estimating injury risk were insufficient. These tests were conducted with flight-like suits and seats to verify the safety of the landing systems. Currently, NASA uses the Brinkley Dynamic Response Index to estimate injury risk, although applying it to the NASA environment has drawbacks: (1) Does not indicate severity or anatomical location of injury (2) Unclear if model applies to NASA applications. Because of these limitations, a new validated, analytical approach was desired. Leveraging off of the current state of the art in automotive safety and racing, a new approach was developed. The approach has several aspects: (1) Define the acceptable level of injury risk by injury severity (2) Determine the appropriate human surrogate for testing and modeling (3) Mine existing human injury data to determine appropriate Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARV). (4) Rigorously Validate the IARVs with sub-injurious human testing (5) Use validated IARVs to update standards and vehicle requirement

Somers, Jeffrey↗
NASA NTRS2011

Independent Review of U.S. and Russian Probabilistic Risk Assessments for the International Space Station Mini Research Module #2 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

The Mini-Research Module-2 (MRM-2), a Russian module on the International Space Station, does not meet its requirements for micrometeoroid and orbital debris probability of no penetration (PNP). To document this condition, the primary Russian Federal Space Agency ISS contractor, S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation-Energia (RSC-E), submitted an ISS non-compliance report (NCR) which was presented at the 5R Stage Operations Readiness Review (SORR) in October 2009. In the NCR, RSC-E argued for waiving the PNP requirement based on several factors, one of which was the risk of catastrophic failure was acceptably low at 1 in 11,100. However, NASA independently performed an assessment of the catastrophic risk resulting in a value of 1 in 1380 and believed that the risk at that level was unacceptable. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center was requested to evaluate the two competing catastrophic risk values and determine which was more accurate. This document contains the outcome of the assessment.

Squire, Michael D.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Guidelines for contingency planning NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) ADP security risk reduction decision studies

Guidance is presented to NASA Computer Security Officials for determining the acceptability or unacceptability of ADP security risks based on the technical, operational and economic feasibility of potential safeguards. The risk management process is reviewed as a specialized application of the systems approach to problem solving and information systems analysis and design. Reporting the results of the risk reduction analysis to management is considered. Report formats for the risk reduction study are provided.

Tompkins, F. G.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Systems Engineering Lessons Learned for Class D Missions

One of NASA's goals within human exploration is to determine how to get humans to Mars safely and to live and work on the Martian surface. To accomplish this goal, several smaller missions act as stepping-stones to the larger end goal. NASA uses these smaller missions to develop new technologies and learn about how to survive outside of Low Earth Orbit for long periods. Additionally, keeping a cadence of these missions allows the team to maintain proficiency in the complex art of bringing spacecraft to fruition. Many of these smaller missions are robotic in nature and have smaller timescales, whereas there are others that involve crew and have longer mission timelines. Given the timelines associated with these various missions, different levels of risk and rigor need to be implemented to be more in line with what is appropriate for the mission. Thus, NASA has four different classifications that range from Class A to Class D based on the mission details. One of these projects is the Resource Prospector (RP) Mission, which is a multi-center and multi-institution collaborative project to search for volatiles in the polar regions of the Moon. The RP mission is classified as a Class D mission and as such, has the opportunity to more tightly manage, and therefore accept, greater levels of risk. The requirements for Class D missions were at the forefront of the design and thus presented unique challenges in vehicle development and systems engineering processes. This paper will discuss the systems engineering process at NASA and how that process is tailored for Class D missions, specifically the RP mission.

Rojdev, Kristina↗
NASA NTRS2016

High Data Rate Architecture (HiDRA)

One of the greatest challenges in developing new space technology is in navigating the transition from ground based laboratory demonstration at Technology Readiness Level 6 (TRL-6) to conducting a prototype demonstration in space (TRL-7). This challenge is com- pounded by the relatively low availability of new spacecraft missions when compared with aeronautical craft to bridge this gap, leading to the general adoption of a low-risk stance by mission management to accept new, unproven technologies into the system. Also in consideration of risk, the limited selection and availability of proven space-grade components imparts a severe limitation on achieving high performance systems by current terrestrial technology standards. Finally from a space communications point of view the long duration characteristic of most missions imparts a major constraint on the entire space and ground network architecture, since any new technologies introduced into the system would have to be compliant with the duration of the currently deployed operational technologies, and in some cases may be limited by surrounding legacy capabilities. Beyond ensuring that the new technology is verified to function correctly and validated to meet the needs of the end users the formidable challenge then grows to additionally include: carefully timing the maturity path of the new technology to coincide with a feasible and accepting future mission so it flies before its relevancy has passed, utilizing a limited catalog of available components to their maximum potential to create meaningful and unprecedented new capabilities, designing and ensuring interoperability with aging space and ground infrastructures while simultaneously providing a growth path to the future. The International Space Station (ISS) is approaching 20 years of age. To keep the ISS relevant, technology upgrades are continuously taking place. Regarding communications, the state-of-the-art communication system upgrades underway include high-rate laser terminals. These must interface with the existing, aging data infrastructure. The High Data Rate Architecture (HiDRA) project is designed to provide networked store, carry, and forward capability to optimize data flow through both the existing radio frequency (RF) and new laser communications terminal. The networking capability is realized through the Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocol, and is used for scheduling data movement as well as optimizing the performance of existing RF channels. HiDRA is realized as a distributed FPGA memory and interface controller that is itself controlled by a local computer running DTN software. Thus HiDRA is applicable to other arenas seeking to employ next-generation communications technologies, e.g. deep space. In this paper, we describe HiDRA and its far-reaching research implications.

DTN↗