Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “heritage”

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 253 records · Page 14

MEDLI2: Ablator Models for Flight

During the entry of Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) the heatshield was equipped with the instrumentation suite Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instruments (MEDLI). In-depth thermocouple (TC) data was used to reconstruct the surface heating[1,2]. Discrepancies between MEDLI’s flight heating data and predicted thermal response and recession[3] led to a campaign to characterize and test Mars2020 and MEDLI2 (Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrument 2)[4] flight-lot thermal protection materials (TPS) at relevant ground test conditions. This paper covers the development and validation of flight-lot material response models for the heatshield material Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) and the backshell material SLA-561V (Super Lightweight Ablator). Virgin and char properties such as thermal conductivity and emissivity were updated as a function of temperature and pressure in the MEDLI2 specific material response models. Other material properties were characterized and determined to be similar to prior TPS material measurements used for the heritage models. MEDLI2 also investigated the impact of the protective coating that was applied to MSL and Mars2020’s PICA heatshield to reduce the particulate matter shedding. Evidence from arc jet experiments on coated PICA showed that although there were no adverse effects on the performance of the TPS, there were differences in the in-depth temperatures and reduced recession compared to material response predictions of uncoated PICA.[5,6]. Fully Implicit Ablation and Thermal response (FIAT)[7] material response simulations were conducted with the heritage and MEDLI2 flight-lot material models. FIAT-predicted in-depth temperature responses and recession predictions were compared to flight-lot certification ground-test arc jet test data and MEDLI2 thermocouple data.

Materials Response↗

PACE OCI Pre-launch ETU Spectral Characterization and Performance

The Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) is the primary sensor on the upcoming Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission. OCI is a new type of sensor compared to NASA’s ocean color heritage sensors VIIRS, MODIS, and SeaWiFs. Unlike its heritage sensors, OCI has two slit grating hyperspectral spectrographs in addition to a fiber-coupled multiband filter spectrograph. The two hyperspectral spectrographs provide continuous coverage from 340nm to 885nm in the UV to NIR range. These spectrographs use programmable CCD detectors that aggregate multiple CCD pixels that can effectively provide various spectral resolutions. The fiber-coupled multiband filter spectrograph provides seven discrete spectral bands from 940nm to 2260nm. OCI completed system level testing of the Engineering Test Unit (ETU) in June 2021 at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The ETU contains one of the slit grating spectrographs (600nm to 885nm) and the fiber-coupled spectrograph. The ETU was tested in thermal vacuum (TVAC) in February 2020 and January 2021 to assess characterization and performance compliance to design requirements. This paper presents an overview of the spectral performance of the OCI ETU for relative spectral response (RSR), integrated Out-of-Band response (IOOB), system gain, band centers, and bandwidths.

PACE↗

Science Objectives of the ACCP/AOS Millimeter- and Submillimeter-Wave Radiometers

Passive microwave radiometers provide highly useful information regarding the Earth system by measuring thermal emission (from the surface and atmosphere) that is reflected, absorbed, and scattered by the surface and the atmosphere. As such, radiometers have been instrumental across Earth-observing concepts with heritage tracing back to the Nimbus era, and clouds and precipitation have been key geophysical phenomena these sensors have targeted. As millimeter-wave (particularly ≥85 GHz) and submillimeter-wave technologies have advanced, the applicability of microwave radiometers has expanded to encompass falling snow and ice clouds, respectively. Given the strong heritage of microwave radiometry and the emergence of submillimeter-wave sensors for sensing falling snow and ice clouds, the National Academies’ 2017 Decadal Survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space recommended passive sensors covering these wavelengths be included in observing systems that address the Aerosols, Clouds, Convection, and Precipitation (ACCP) combined designated observable. To showcase the capabilities for addressing the ACCP science objectives, we will provide an overview of the passive microwave capabilities envisioned for the Atmosphere Observing System (AOS, part of the recently unveiled NASA Earth System Observatory), including descriptions of the radiometers for the inclined and polar orbits and the primary geophysical variables of interest related to ice-phase clouds and precipitation. We will also discuss secondary science objectives, such as precipitation mapping, that can be achieved with the ACCP/AOS radiometers. Examples from the analyses performed for the ACCP/AOS architecture study and subsequent sensor definition exercises will be presented, outlining the basis for the radiometer configuration within the context of the overarching ACCP/AOS goals to elucidate the connections between atmospheric dynamics, weather (including extreme events), air quality, and climate.

Ian S Adams↗

Robust and Mass Efficient Thermal Protection Systems for Future Venus Missions

Several international Venus missions, both orbiter, and in-situ probe are in the works after a prolonged absence. Future missions are expected to be long-duration lander missions and balloon missions to investigate the cloud layer. The entry mass for these in-situ missions will be significantly higher, and the aeroshell will be larger, than previous missions. Two cardinal requirements govern the selection and use of thermal protection systems (TPS), namely, robustness to assure mission safety during entry and mass efficiency so that the useful mass for science is maximized. One cannot trade mission safety for mass when it comes to TPS. The robustness of the TPS is a paramount requirement as it is a single point of system failure. At the same time, TPS mass is carried for the entire mission duration prior to entry, and any excess TPS mass is at the cost of science payload. Future missions will benefit enormously from TPS options with mass and performance benefits far beyond advanced carbon-carbon (ACC) that is currently proposed for the DAVINCI mission. NASA STMD, and SMD jointly invested in the development of 3-D woven thermal protection systems in the last decade, and as a result, the Heat-shield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) TPS has been matured to TRL 6. It is ready for future mission use including Venus. The HEEET project focused on developing a broad technology base, applicable for missions not only to Venus, but also to Saturn, the Ice Giants, and higher speed sample return missions such as Mars Sample Return requiring extreme robustness due to bio-hazards. The dual-layer HEEET (DL-HEEET) is proven to be extremely robust. DL-HEEET performed well in arc jet and laser testing conditions where heritage carbon-phenolic failed. HEEET also proved to be more mass efficient compared to Carbon-Phenolic. Recently, the principal author was invited to present his perspectives to the 2023-2032 Planetary Sciences Decadal Venus subcommittee on the current state of TPS for future Venus missions [1]. In addition to pointing out successful TPS and other developments in the last decade in support of entry systems, the principal author made two findings: 1) importance of and need to sustain TPS capabilities that took nearly a decade to develop and 2) the opportunity to further optimize TPS mass without sacrificing robustness to further enable future in-situ missions. This talk will focus on the above two recommendations and provide the rationale for them. The intent of the talk is to seek advocacy from the VEXAG community for the criticality of TPS sustainment and the benefits of 3D woven TPS optimization. TPS Capability Sustainment: HEEET development was necessitated by the atrophy of heritage carbon-phenolic. Atrophy has impacted other TPS materials as well. Avcoat, the TPS that successfully allowed astronauts to explore the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, took nearly a decade and $10’sM to recover in support of Orion/Artemis. One of the most used TPS materials, SLA 561V, had to be recovered prior to its use on Mars Pathfinder. Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA), the TPS that replaced SLA 561V on MSL, has undergone multiple replacements and recovery due to constituent rayon changes. Recently, NASA invested in a domestic rayon replacement program and also invested in FMI to consolidate PICA capability for NASA missions, as a result of FMI’s decision to discontinue commercial FiberForm, which is needed for PICA. TPS used for planetary missions are unique and have no other commercial or defense use. In addition, low mission cadence is also a driver for TPS atrophy. Hence, NASA, as the steward, must take steps to ensure and sustain TPS capabilities. In this talk, we outline steps NASA can take to keep abreast of emerging risks and target risk mitigation steps to ensure TPS capability sustainment for Venus and other extreme environment missions. Next Generation of Mass efficient and Robust TPS: NASA invested in an alternate TPS to PICA based on felt-technology called Conformal-PICA which has the potential to save 30% - 50% mass over PICA. The development was discontinued at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of ~ 5. 3D Mid-Density Carbon Phenolic (3MDCP) is a single layer variant of HEEET, based on the insulating layer only (SL-HEEET) and currently baselined for the Mars Sample Return Mission Earth Entry System due to its mass efficiency (30% more mass efficient than DL- HEEET). Currently, SL-HEEET is limited to aeroshell diameters of < 1.3m. The SL-HEEET was compared to DL-HEEET in the recent ADVENT flag-ship class mission study in support of the Planetary Science Decadal. SL HEEET was the recommended TPS based on 30% mass savings for both the balloon and lander missions. Given C-PICA and SL-HEEET have superior reliability and mass efficiency, advocacy from VEXAG is sought for completing their further development to TRL 5/6 in this decade so as to enable TPS readiness for future missions.

Thermal Protection Systems↗

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗

MEDLI2 Material Response Model Development and Validation

During the entry of Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) the heatshield was equipped with the instrumentation suite Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instruments (MEDLI). In-depth thermocouple (TC) data was used to reconstruct the surface heating and temperatures. Discrepancies between MEDLI’s recorded in-depth heating data and the predicted thermal response and recession led to a campaign to characterize and test Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrument 2 (MEDLI2) flight lot thermal protection materials (TPS) at relevant temperatures and pressures for Martian entry conditions. This paper covers the development and validation of MEDLI2 flight lot material response models for the heatshield material Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) and the backshell material Super-Lightweight Ablator (SLA-561V). Virgin and char thermal conductivities were updated as a function of temperature and pressure in the MEDLI2 specific material response models. Other material properties such as virgin and char density, emissivity, absorptivity, and specific heat capacitance was also characterized and compared to the “Heritage” models used during the TPS design phase of Mars 2020. Fully Implicit Ablation and Thermal response (FIAT) simulations were completed using the Heritage and MEDLI2 material response models to provide evidence of the increased accuracy of the MEDLI2 model. FIAT predicted in-depth temperatures were compared to flight lot certification ground-test arc jet test data and MEDLI2 flight thermocouple data.

Material response↗

Dynamic Stability Analysis Using Free-Flight CFD

Blunt body probes are the primary design for atmospheric entry. The blunted capsule shape, while desirable for the decreased forebody heating, typically experiences dynamic instability at low supersonic and transonic flight. At moderate to low supersonic conditions, the unsteady wake begins to adversely interact with the vehicle in free-flight resulting in attitude oscillations which can grow in time and result in tumbling. Understanding vehicle dynamics is thus important when considering vehicle entry design and guidance navigation and control (GN&C) considerations. Historically, dynamic stability has been carried out exclusively using experimental techniques. The wide range of experimental approaches provide reasonable coverage in Mach and dynamic pressure space for a given trajectory, however achieving flight similitude is often difficult or impossible. Advancements in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques allow for dynamic motion of the vehicle surface during the simulation with either forced/prescribed motion or free motion in response to fluid forces. Several examples of CFD software with the ability to simulate fluid dynamics and vehicle motion are available in literature. The Free-Flight CFD (FF-CFD) capability developed by NASA Ames within the US3D flow solver has shown extensive validation and verification (V&V) efforts from moderate to low supersonic flow across a range of vehicle architectures. The solver is able to simulate full rotational and translation motion resulting in full 6 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) motion. The validation and verification efforts the solver's ability to predict the motion of a ballistic range model as compared to experimental results. Similar to other computational capabilities in literature, FF-CFD relied on heritage data reduction methodologies and processes for reducing dynamic data into aerodynamic coefficients intended for use in design and trajectory codes. These heritage approaches, initially developed with the assumptions (and restrictions) of ground test facilities, resulted in the significant culling of the full 6-DoF dynamic data set to discrete values which are then fit using an aerodynamic model. Recent development of simulation and data reduction methodologies has resulted in an improved approach to FF-CFD simulations of vehicle dynamics which leverage the control of dynamic constraints within a simulation set-up. The presentation of this work will cover the constrained dynamic simulation approach for deriving dynamic coefficients for a Genesis capsule. The methodology will be outlined and a discussion of implications in motion restriction will be discussed. Finally, reconstructed vehicle trajectories using FF-CFD derived aerodynamic coefficients will be presented.

Joseph M Brock↗

Development and Qualification Status of the Electric Propulsion Systems for the NASA PPE Mission and Gateway Program

NASA is charged with landing the first American woman and next American man on the South Pole of the Moon and establishing sustainable lunar exploration by the end of the decade. To meet this challenge, NASA’s Gateway will develop and deploy critical infrastructure required for operations on the lunar surface and that enables a sustained presence on and around the moon. NASA’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), the first planned element of NASA’s cis-lunar Gateway, leverages prior and ongoing NASA and U.S. industry investments in high-power, long-life solar electric propulsion technology investments. NASA awarded a PPE contract to Maxar Technologies to provide a 50 kW-class SEP spacecraft that meets Gateway’s needs, aligns with industry’s heritage spacecraft buses, and allows extensibility for NASA’s Mars exploration goals. Maxar’s PPE concept design, is based on their high heritage, modular, and highly reliable 1300-series bus architecture. The electric propulsion system features three 12 kW Advanced Electric Propulsion (AEPS) thrusters from Aerojet Rocketdyne and four BHT-6000 thrusters from Busek. Maxar-provided power electronics and xenon flow controllers from Moog are utilized in both the 12kW and 6kW electric propulsion strings on the spacecraft. The paper will present overviews of NASA’s Gateway and the PPE Project, status of the development and qualification activities for the two electric propulsion system, and the planned implementation of PPE electric propulsion system as keystone of NASA’s Gateway. The PPE spacecraft is currently heading into the Critical Design Review, with the qualification and flight electric propulsion hardware fabrication already initiated and significant progress being made toward planned qualifications in support of the planned PPE spacecraft co-manifest launch in 2024.

Electric Propulsion↗

Development and Qualification Status of the Electric Propulsion Systems for the NASA PPE Mission and Gateway Program

NASA is charged with landing the first American woman and next American man on the South Pole of the Moon and establishing sustainable lunar exploration by the end of the decade. To meet this challenge, NASA’s Gateway will develop and deploy critical infrastructure required for operations on the lunar surface and that enables a sustained presence on and around the moon. NASA’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), the first planned element of NASA’s cis-lunar Gateway, leverages prior and ongoing NASA and U.S. industry investments in high-power, long-life solar electric propulsion technology investments. NASA awarded a PPE contract to Maxar Technologies to provide a 50 kW-class SEP spacecraft that meets Gateway’s needs, aligns with industry’s heritage spacecraft buses, and allows extensibility for NASA’s Mars exploration goals. Maxar’s PPE concept design, is based on their high heritage, modular, and highly reliable 1300-series bus architecture. The electric propulsion system features three 12 kW Advanced Electric Propulsion (AEPS) thrusters from Aerojet Rocketdyne and four BHT-6000 thrusters from Busek. Maxar-provided power electronics and xenon flow controllers from Moog are utilized in both the 12kW and 6kW electric propulsion strings on the spacecraft. The paper will present overviews of NASA’s Gateway and the PPE Project, status of the development and qualification activities for the two electric propulsion system, and the planned implementation of PPE electric propulsion system as keystone of NASA’s Gateway. The PPE spacecraft is currently heading into the Critical Design Review, with the qualification and flight electric propulsion hardware fabrication already initiated and significant progress being made toward planned qualifications in support of the planned PPE spacecraft co-manifest launch in 2024.

Electric Propulsion↗

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↗

Advanced Modeling of Control-Structure Interaction in Thrust Vector Control Systems

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. During the development of the SLS TVC system, a family of advanced dynamics models were developed to extend and compliment the simplified quasi-linear “simplex” model historically used for flight control design and stability analysis. The importance of these advanced models became increasingly evident after ambient and hot fire testing of the Core Stage, which revealed a number of findings associated with the dynamic response of the TVC integrated system. Test responses suggested that the TVC did not meet its performance specifications and its step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior lab tests and modeled behavior. One driving factor for these results was a higher-than-expected degree of coupling between the TVC system, the engine dynamics, and the Core Stage structure. This paper is the third installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, a new method of modeling rocket vehicle thrust vectoring servoelastic dynamics is presented. In this approach, the load dynamics are replaced by a detailed finite element model containing both the rigid body and elastic modes. A partitioning technique is used to compute the effective compliance from the modal data and obtain accurate simulation results using a reduced number of generalized coordinates. Coupled backup structure and nozzle attach compliance effects on multiple engines are captured in higher fidelity than with a spring approximation, eliciting novel effects due to the complex load paths involved in the Core Stage structure. Validation of the model is demonstrated using a variety of structural/modal, laboratory, and full-scale hot fire test data.

Launch Vehicles↗

Advanced Modeling of Control-Structure Interaction in Thrust Vector Control Systems

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. During the development of the SLS TVC system, a family of advanced dynamics models were developed to extend and compliment the simplified quasi-linear “simplex” model historically used for flight control design and stability analysis. The importance of these advanced models became increasingly evident after ambient and hot fire testing of the Core Stage, which revealed a number of findings associated with the dynamic response of the TVC integrated system. Test responses suggested that the TVC did not meet its performance specifications and its step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior lab tests and modeled behavior. One driving factor for these results was a higher-than-expected degree of coupling between the TVC system, the engine dynamics, and the Core Stage structure. This paper is the third installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, a new method of modeling rocket vehicle thrust vectoring servoelastic dynamics is presented. In this approach, the load dynamics are replaced by a detailed finite element model containing both the rigid body and elastic modes. A partitioning technique is used to compute the effective compliance from the modal data and obtain accurate simulation results using a reduced number of generalized coordinates. Coupled backup structure and nozzle attach compliance effects on multiple engines are captured in higher fidelity than with a spring approximation, eliciting novel effects due to the complex load paths involved in the Core Stage structure. Validation of the model is demonstrated using a variety of structural/modal, laboratory, and full-scale hot fire test data.

Launch Vehicles↗

Structural Dynamics Observations in Space Launch System Green Run Hot Fire Testing

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Green Run Hot Fire (GRHF) of the SLS Core Stage provided a flight-like ground test environment for verification of integrated vehicle TVC performance. A TVC model coupled to a vehicle structural dynamic model has been developed previously and incrementally validated in subsystem tests and simulations. Still, some aspects of TVC performance in GRHF were not anticipated. The ensuing investigation demonstrated the need for well-instrumented test environments, various levels of modeling fidelity, test-representative structural models, and caution in reuse of legacy components. This paper is the sixth installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. It introduces the salient structural dynamic phenomena uncovered in ambient and hot fire testing. During the Green Run test campaign, a comparison of ambient and hot fire step responses showed a significant change in apparent damping due to the presence of friction, challenging long standing assumptions that friction could be neglected. Additionally, the characteristic response of the engine and thrust structure during GRHF proved to be more complex than anticipated, as evidenced by the available actuator, thrust structure, and engine measurements. While the string-potentiometer based test instrumentation was intended to allow for reconstruction of the engine angles along the two control axes, the geometric placement, location uncertainty, and responses in overlapping frequency spectra revealed additional phenomena requiring further analysis and post-processing. The observations from both modal and frequency response testing during the Green Run ambient and hot fire configurations led to Engine and Core Stage FEM (finite element model) updates. When evidence of unexpected engine motion was found in engine section accelerometer data, the authors pursued additional structural analysis leading to FEM updates associated with the TVC gimbal and thrust structure. Through collaboration between structures, TVC, and flight control disciplines, the test-informed models and root-cause analysis led to confident flight rationale for the first flight of the SLS launch vehicle.

Richard K. Moore↗

Design, Instrumentation, and Data Analysis for the SLS Core Stage Green Run Test Series

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. The actuators are powered by a Shuttle-derived hydraulic Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU), and integrated with an all-new Core Stage thrust structure. The actuators are interfaced to the SLS Vehicle Management (VM) software via an all-new TVC Actuator Control (TAC) avionics subsystem. Despite the significant test and flight experience of the Shuttle hardware, the SLS Green Run ambient and hot fire test activities revealed a number of new findings associated with the dynamic response of the TVC integrated system. Test responses suggested that the TVC system did not meet its performance specifications and its step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior lab tests and modeled behavior. This paper is the fifth installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the design of the TVC analyses conducted during the Core Stage Green Run test series are discussed in detail. Throughout the course of the test activities, the SLS flight control team worked diligently with the Core Stage contractor to revise test command profiles and ensure sufficient instrumentation was available to collect data. Post-test analysis combined the Green Run modal, ambient, and hot fire test data, MSFC 2- axis Core Stage TVC Inertial Load Simulator (ILS) data, Hardware-In-the-Loop (HWIL) Systems Integration Lab (SIL) results, and actuator Acceptance Testing Procedure (ATP) responses. These data were used to characterize the response, validate critical math models of the TVC subsystem, and isolate the probable cause of the unexpected responses. Through comprehensive analysis of the available test data sources, the integrated team identified the dominant contributors to the observed response and developed test-correlated rationale for vehicle flight control system performance, ultimately leading to a confident posture for the Artemis I mission.

John H. Wall↗

Structural Dynamics Observations in Space Launch System Green Run Hot Fire Testing

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Green Run Hot Fire (GRHF) of the SLS Core Stage provided a flight-like ground test environment for verification of integrated vehicle TVC performance. A TVC model coupled to a vehicle structural dynamic model has been developed previously and incrementally validated in subsystem tests and simulations. Still, some aspects of TVC performance in GRHF were not anticipated. The ensuing investigation demonstrated the need for well-instrumented test environments, various levels of modeling fidelity, test-representative structural models, and caution in reuse of legacy components. This paper is the sixth installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. It introduces the salient structural dynamic phenomena uncovered in ambient and hot fire testing. During the Green Run test campaign, a comparison of ambient and hot fire step responses showed a significant change in apparent damping due to the presence of friction, challenging long standing assumptions that friction could be neglected. Additionally, the characteristic response of the engine and thrust structure during GRHF proved to be more complex than anticipated, as evidenced by the available actuator, thrust structure, and engine measurements. While the string-potentiometer based test instrumentation was intended to allow for reconstruction of the engine angles along the two control axes, the geometric placement, location uncertainty, and responses in overlapping frequency spectra revealed additional phenomena requiring further analysis and post-processing. The observations from both modal and frequency response testing during the Green Run ambient and hot fire configurations led to Engine and Core Stage FEM (finite element model) updates. When evidence of unexpected engine motion was found in engine section accelerometer data, the authors pursued additional structural analysis leading to FEM updates associated with the TVC gimbal and thrust structure. Through collaboration between structures, TVC, and flight control disciplines, the test-informed models and root-cause analysis led to confident flight rationale for the first flight of the SLS launch vehicle.

Richard Moore↗

Flight Performance and Stability of Space Launch System Core Stage Thrust Vector Control

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. The Core Stage TVC shares vehicle control authority with the SLS 5-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) during boost phase flight, and is the sole means of vehicle flight control during in exoatmospheric flight following SRB separation. TVC responses during Green Run Hot Fire (GRHF) testing revealed that the TVC did not meet its performance specifications. Step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior laboratory data and modeled behavior. Post-test analysis determined that the characteristics of the structure and gimbal friction are significantly influenced by the thrust-loaded conditions, and the command avionics exhibited a small but important gain nonlinearity. Using the available test data, the design team augmented the flight control TVC models to bound the observed results and include the additional fidelity needed for vehicle flight control analysis so as to build sufficient rationale for flight certification. Prior to the Green Run tests, “simplex” linear models typically used for flight control analysis did not include gimbal friction and other nonlinearities owing to long-standing assumptions that these effects were negligible in the Shuttle Orbiter TVC system. Following the Green Run findings, simulation analysis of the flight dynamics in the time and frequency domain revealed the propensity for a flight control limit cycle oscillation (LCO) if friction and structural compliances fell near the edges of test-predicted bounds. While the “most probable” models did not predict an in-flight LCO, the SLS Program conservatively proceeded with a system-wide evaluation and ultimate acceptance of the possibility for a small amplitude, low-frequency TVC LCO in flight. A final validation of the extensive test and modeling effort occurred when the first flight of SLS successfully demonstrated the fully integrated performance of the vehicle’s TVC system This paper is the final installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the development of flight rationale in light of the TVC responses observed in Green Run is discussed, along with a review of the flight telemetry illustrating the correlation of the preflight predictions with the observed performance.

John H. Wall↗

Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing System Software Implementation

On February 18th, 2021, the Mars 2020 project's Perseverance Rover successfully touched down on the Martian surface after nearly eight years of development. The Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) System largely leveraged heritage from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) EDL System while employing targeted technological advancements. The landing process is autonomously directed by a software behavior implemented in the rover's primary flight computer called the EDL Timeline that assumes control of the vehicle six days before atmospheric entry. This paper first walks through the basics of the EDL Timeline mechanics and how the behavior is designed to account for internal system variations and environmental unknowns. It then summarizes the interactions between the EDL timeline and other high-level system behaviors like spacecraft mode transitions and system fault protection, focusing on the complications that arise when passing spacecraft control between executive functions. Although the MSL-inherited EDL System is reliable and capable, targeted updates and a thorough verification and validation program were required for Mars 2020. This paper discusses changes made to close vulnerabilities discovered during both MSL and Mars 2020 development cycles, landing system capability enhancements that were enabling for Mars 2020's mission, and how these updates were integrated with the heritage system. It then describes how both analysis and testing campaigns were utilized to verify and validate all aspects of EDL and system behaviors that run during the six days before landing, as well as the operational workarounds that were needed to address problems found during the development and commissioning process. Finally, this paper imparts lessons learned from Mars 2020 EDL development, implementation, and operations, emphasizing how systems designed to conduct time-critical mission events with low margin of error can be improved in the future.

Stehura, Aaron↗

Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing Software Implementation

On February 18th, 2021, the Mars 2020 project's Perseverance Rover successfully touched down on the Martian surface after nearly eight years of development. The Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) System largely leveraged heritage from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) EDL System while employing targeted technological advancements. The landing process is autonomously directed by a software behavior implemented in the rover's primary flight computer called the EDL Timeline that assumes control of the vehicle six days before atmospheric entry. In addition to performing the critical function of landing the rover on the Martian surface, the EDL timeline behavior must co-exist in a non-partitioned software and system environment with other high-level functions that accomplish the goals for the rest of the mission. Due to the criticality of EDL, the potential for loss of mission, and a need for complete system autonomy, the standard for how the EDL Timeline interacts with other functions in the system is highly constrained. This paper first walks through the basics of the EDL Timeline mechanics and how the behavior is designed to account for internal system variations and environmental unknowns. It then summarizes the interactions between the EDL timeline and other high-level system behaviors like spacecraft mode transitions and system fault protection, focusing on the complications that arise when passing spacecraft control between executive functions. Although the MSL-inherited EDL System is reliable and capable, targeted updates and a thorough verification and validation program were required for Mars 2020. This paper discusses changes made to close vulnerabilities discovered during both MSL and Mars 2020 development cycles, landing system capability enhancements that were enabling for Mars 2020's mission, and how these updates were integrated with the heritage system. It then describes how both analysis and testing campaigns were utilized to verify and validate all aspects of EDL and system behaviors that run during the six days before landing, as well as the operational workarounds that were needed to address problems found during the development and commissioning process. Finally, this paper imparts lessons learned from Mars 2020 EDL development, implementation, and operations, emphasizing how systems designed to conduct time-critical mission events with low margin of error can be improved in the future.

Stehura, Aaron↗