Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “shared mobility”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Design for the Structure and the Mechanics of Moballs

The moball is envisioned to be a round, self-powered, and wind-driven multifunctioning sensor used in the Gone with the Wind ON-Mars (GOWON) [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ marsconcepts2012/pdf/4238.pdf]: A Wind-Driven Networked System of Mobile sensors on Mars. The moballs would have sensing, processing, and communication capabilities. The moballs would perform in situ detection of key environmental elements such as vaporized water, trace gases, wind, dust, clouds, light and UV exposure, temperature, as well as minerals of interest, possible biosignatures, surface magnetic and electric fields, etc. The embedded various low-power micro instruments could include a Multispectral Microscopic Imager (to detect various minerals), a compact curved focal plane array camera (UV/Vis/NIR) with a large field of view, a compact UV/Visible spectrometer, a micro-weather station, etc. The moballs could communicate with each other and an orbiter. Their wind- or gravity-driven rolling movement could be used to harvest and store electric energy. They could also generate and store energy using the sunlight, when available, and the diurnal temperature variations on Mars. The moballs would be self-aware of their (and their neighbors ) positions, energy storage, and memory availability; they would have processing power and could intelligently cooperate with neighboring moballs by distributing tasks, sharing data, and fusing information. The major advantages of using the wind-driven and spherical moball network over rovers or other fixed sensor webs to explore Mars would be: (1) moballs could explore a much larger expanse of Mars in a much faster fashion, (2) they could explore the difficult terrains such as steep slopes and sand dunes, and (3) they would be self-energy- generating and could work together and move around autonomously. The challenge in designing the structure and the mechanics of the moball would be that it should be sturdy enough to withstand the impact of its initial fall, as well as other impacts from obstacles in its way. A mechanism would be needed that could enable hundreds of moballs to be carried while they would be deflated and compact, then would inflate them just after deploying them to their drop site. Furthermore, the moballs should also be light enough to allow them to move easily over obstacles by force of the wind. They also should have some kind of maneuvering mechanism in place to help them avoid very hazardous sharp objects or events, and to enable them to get closer to the objects of interest. The structure of the moballs was designed so that they would have different layers. The outer layer should comprise a sturdy, yet light, polymer that could withstand both the impact of the initial drop, as well as the impact of the different obstacles it would encounter while traversing the surface of Mars. This polymer should not deteriorate with the 100 K daily temperature swings on Mars. The inner layer should consist of a very light gas such as nitrogen or helium. In terms of maneuvering, six very light weights placed at strategic locations would give moballs the ability to turn, or even hop, over hazardous (e.g., sharp) obstacles, or even initiate a movement (before getting more help from the wind to be carried around) when stuck. Maneuvering would be necessary in order to get closer to objects of interest. If the weights would be allowed to move freely, they could also be used to generate energy.

Davoodi, Faranak↗
DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations for Minimum Required Diagnostics Information for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

The rapid growth of electrified transportation, including light- and medium-duty electric vehicles (EVs) as a mobility solution requires a reliable EV charging infrastructure. To advance charging reliability, the ChargeX Consortium reports “Recommendations for Minimum Required Error Codes for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” and “Implementation Guide for Minimum Required Error Codes in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” have provided recommendations for a set of minimum required error codes (MRECs), their functional and responsibility classifications, and a guide for their implementation using OCPP versions 1.6J and 2.0.1. These reports outline a recommended practice for consistent error reporting and interpretation, which is essential for communicating issues uniformly across the complex and diverse EV charging ecosystem. However, MRECs are just one part of diagnosing issues, another critical part is obtaining enough information about the current state and performance of the various charging components to identify root causes for each of the error codes. This additional diagnostics data can be used by technicians or automated systems to understand the context around an issue, allowing for timely resolution, decreased maintenance costs, and increased charging reliability. During everyday operations, data is regularly collected and analyzed across the ecosystem. Although sharing of all that available data would be great for diagnostics, concerns on data ownership, privacy, and OEM intellectual property pose a challenge. To overcome this obstacle, this report proposes a set of Minimum Required Diagnostic Information (MRDI) and recommends that the industry implement these uniformly across the North American EV charging ecosystem. MRDI provides a means to exchange only data deemed necessary for root cause determination.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗
DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations for Minimum Required Diagnostics Information

The rapid growth of electrified transportation, including light- and medium-duty electric vehicles (EVs) as a mobility solution requires a reliable EV-charging infrastructure. To advance charging reliability, the ChargeX Consortium reports “Recommendations for Minimum Required Error Codes for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” and “Implementation Guide for Minimum Required Error Codes in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” provided recommendations for a set of minimum required error codes (MRECs), their functional and responsibility classifications, and a guide for their implementation, using Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) versions 1.6J4 and 2.0.1.5 These reports outline a recommended practice for consistent error reporting and interpretation, which is essential for communicating issues uniformly across the complex and diverse EV-charging ecosystem. However, MRECs are just one part of diagnosing issues; another critical part is obtaining enough information about the current state and performance of the various charging components to identify root causes for each of the error codes. This additional diagnostics data can be used by technicians or automated systems to understand the context around an issue, allowing for timely resolution, decreased maintenance costs, and increased charging reliability. During everyday operations, data are regularly collected and analyzed across the ecosystem. Although sharing of all that available data would be great for diagnostics, concerns on data ownership, privacy, and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) intellectual property pose a challenge. To overcome this obstacle, this report proposes a set of minimum required diagnostic information (MRDI) and recommends that the industry implement these uniformly across the North American EV charging ecosystem. MRDI provides a means to exchange only data deemed necessary for root cause determination.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

How Improved Forecasting Can Increase the Bulk Power System Value of Price-Responsive Electric Vehicle Managed Charging

Personal light-duty vehicle (LDV) electric vehicle managed charging (EVMC) can reduce power system costs by better aligning electric vehicle (EV) charging with locations and times of low energy cost or infrastructure use. The need to coordinate charging demand across thousands to millions of vehicles while preserving mobility service is a barrier to realizing the value of EVMC. Price-responsive dispatch mechanisms like time-of-use rates (TOU) and hourly real-time prices (RTP) are attractive compared to direct load control (DLC) because they only require one-way communications and local controls. However, increasing participation in price responsive mechanisms can induce costly-to-serve spikes in load and otherwise increase, rather than decrease, production costs. We quantify the ability of improved EVMC forecasting to sustain savings from price responsive mechanisms beyond the limit of 14% of LDVs actively participating observed in previous work. Perfect forecasting of price-responsive EV load makes TOU and RTP value-competitive with a low-error DLC formulation with up to 27% (within-week flexibility) to 45% or more (within-session flexibility) of LDVs participating in EVMC in an envisioned New England power system with 84% clean energy. Additional costs of implementing DLC should be no more than tens of dollars per vehicle-year if DLC is to be value-competitive with accurately forecast price-responsive EVMC for double-digit percentage shares of LDVs participating.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Demand Capacity Balancing at Vertiports for Initial Strategic Conflict Management of Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new transportation concept that enables highly automated, cooperative, passenger or cargo-carrying air transportation services in and around urban areas. To achieve the high level of operational density and complexity desired by the UAM community, an airspace system that allows UAM operators to readily access and operate safely and efficiently in the airspace is needed. This airspace system will require air traffic management designed to reduce the risk of conflicts and loss of separation between UAM flights. In general, strategic conflict management is considered as the first layer of conflict management for safe flight operations to condition the traffic to reduce the need for airborne separation provision, the second layer of conflict management. Demand Capacity Balancing (DCB) is one of the concept components to achieve strategic conflict management. DCB strategically evaluates traffic demand and resource capacities to allow UAM operators to determine when, where and how they operate, while mitigating conflicting needs for airspace and vertiport capacity. DCB can be applied whenever UAM demand exceeds the capacity in airspace or at vertiports. As the UAM ecosystem evolves with advanced technologies and matured operational procedures, more complicated conflict management will likely be needed. In the current UAM ‘Concept of Operation (ConOps) 1.0’ operational stage defined by FAA, however, it will be meaningful to explore the demand capacity balancing at vertiports only, as an initial strategic conflict management approach for UAM operations because vertiport capacity seems to be a bottleneck of UAM traffic. For this research, we developed a demand-capacity imbalance detection and resolution service for UAM. This DCB service identifies the demand from operators and compares the demand to a given capacity at the shared resources (i.e., vertiports) over the upcoming time horizon which is divided into time bins having a constant interval. When a new flight plan is submitted, the algorithm embedded in the DCB service checks the available time bins based on the desired departure time and estimated arrival time at origin and destination vertiports, respectively. If the time bins for the originally desired times are already occupied by other flights (i.e., demand is at or above capacity), the algorithm finds the next available time bins for takeoff and landing and shifts the conflicting departure time to the earliest time that satisfies the capacity constraints at both origin and destination vertiports. The details of the algorithm will be described in the final manuscript. Figure 1 shows that the proposed DCB algorithm works well for a sample traffic scenario. In this example, a total of 144 flights, split between two operators, are planned over 2 hours, traveling 10 routes between five vertiports. In the heatmaps, the horizontal axis shows 12 time bins where each bin represents a 12-minute interval, and the vertical axis shows five vertiports. The number in each cell shows the number of operations, counting both departures and arrivals, at a specific vertiport in each time bin. For the given capacity of 2 operations/vertiport/bin, Figure 1 shows that the original demand sometimes exceeds the capacity, but the modified demand is reduced to the given capacity after resolving demand-capacity imbalances. When UAM flights are operated, it is expected that many practical issues would arise in the federated system architecture with multiple operators. UAM operators may experience a time synchronization issue due to communication delay between operator and vehicle. UAM vehicles would fly at different flight speeds, depending on vehicle models. Actual departure and arrival times can have large variations, compared to the schedule. The lead time from flight plan submission to desired departure time can vary by service type (e.g., regular shuttle service vs. on-demand service). Using the proposed DCB algorithm, we also investigated how the actual flight schedule and DCB performance are affected by these uncertainties such as unsynchronized times between operators, flight speed differences, lead time differences, and departure time errors. The final manuscript will include the background of this research work, the description of the DCB algorithm and its use cases with traffic scenarios. It will also provide the analytical results about the impact of various uncertainties that can occur in actual UAM operations on the DCB at vertiports, in terms of demand distribution changes, number of simultaneous operations, and delay propagation.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2003

SUBSA and PFMI Transparent Furnace Systems Currently in use in the International Space Station Microgravity Science Glovebox

The Solidification Using a Baffle in Sealed Ampoules (SUBSA) and Pore Formation and Mobility Investigation (PFMI) furnaces were developed for operation in the International Space Station (ISS) Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG). Both furnaces were launched to the ISS on STS-111, June 4, 2002, and are currently in use on orbit. The SUBSA furnace provides a maximum temperature of 850 C and can accommodate a metal sample as large as 30 cm long and 12mm in diameter. SUBSA utilizes a gradient freeze process with a minimum cooldown rate of 0.5C per min, and a stability of +/- 0.15C. An 8 cm long transparent gradient zone coupled with a Cohu 3812 camera and quartz ampoule allows for observation and video recording of the solidification process. PFMI is a Bridgman type furnace that operates at a maximum temperature of 130C and can accommodate a sample 23cm long and 10mm in diameter. Two Cohu 3812 cameras mounted 90 deg apart move on a separate translation system which allows for viewing of the sample in the transparent hot zone and gradient zone independent of the furnace translation rate and direction. Translation rates for both the cameras and furnace can be specified from 0.5micrometers/sec to 100 micrometers/sec with a stability of +/-5%. The two furnaces share a Process Control Module (PCM) which controls the furnace hardware, a Data Acquisition Pad (DaqPad) which provides signal condition of thermal couple data, and two Cohu 3812 cameras. The hardware and software allow for real time monitoring and commanding of critical process control parameters. This paper will provide a detailed explanation of the SUBSA and PFMI systems along with performance data and some preliminary results from completed on-orbit processing runs.

Spivey, Reggie A.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Well‐to‐wheels analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for passenger vehicles in Middle East and North Africa

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are widely considered a pathway to achieve low carbon mobility. BEVs emit zero emissions from the tailpipe, but their life cycle carbon reduction compared to gasoline vehicles varies based on primary energy sources, electricity generation, and use efficiency. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is an area rich in fossil fuels, meriting a detailed comparison between the emissions from BEV and other powertrains. We developed a MENA‐specific life cycle model that estimates well‐to‐wheel (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger transport with internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles, and BEVs. MENA's average WTW GHG emissions for all supply chain steps including combustion emissions from vehicle operation are 767 g/kWh and 84 g CO 2 eq/MJ for electricity and gasoline, respectively, but are highly variable due to heterogeneity in upstream supply chains. The use of hybrid gasoline ICEVs provides the largest emission reduction opportunity for existing vehicle fleets in 9 of the 16 MENA countries. For these nine countries, replacing gasoline ICEVs with HEVs could, on average, reduce country‐level life cycle GHG emissions by 47%. There is a similar emission reduction opportunity for 14 of the 16 MENA countries when normalizing vehicle efficiencies irrespective of the powertrain shares and other trends in existing vehicle fleets. Future scenario analysis shows that BEVs would have the lowest WTW GHG emissions among all powertrains in most MENA countries only if significantly reduced electricity transmission losses and cleaner grid mix are realized, although a high cost of infrastructure developments is expected.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Autonomous Transportation Awareness: Data Exchange Use Cases, Standards, and Barriers

This report examines the critical data exchanges between automated vehicle (AV) service providers and the cities and municipalities they serve. It assists municipal authorities in navigating the often complex and real-time digital data exchanges needed to support AV mobility services, with emphasis in three areas: (1) critical safety data for broad-area situational awareness of hazards typically associated emergency dispatch or roadway work zones; (2) performance metrics of AV services that inform the quantity, quality, spatial extents, and impact on the roadway network; and (3) regulatory and policy information, particularly dynamic information that governs how AV services interact with the roadway network, with emphasis on curb space. The report reviews existing practices and emerging protocols and standards and identifies key gaps to address moving forward.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
NASA NTRS2010

Operational Lessons Learned from the Ares I-X Flight Test

The Ares I-X flight test, launched in 2009, is the first test of the Ares I crew launch vehicle. This development flight test evaluated the flight dynamics, roll control, and separation events, but also provided early insights into logistical, stacking, launch, and recovery operations for Ares I. Operational lessons will be especially important for NASA as the agency makes the transition from the Space Shuttle to the Constellation Program, which is designed to be less labor-intensive. The mission team itself comprised only 700 individuals over the life of the project compared to the thousands involved in Shuttle and Apollo missions; while missions to and beyond low-Earth orbit obviously will require additional personnel, this lean approach will serve as a model for future Constellation missions. To prepare for Ares I-X, vehicle stacking and launch infrastructure had to be modified at Kennedy Space Center's Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) as well as Launch Complex (LC) 39B. In the VAB, several platforms and other structures designed for the Shuttle s configuration had to be removed to accommodate the in-line, much taller Ares I-X. Vehicle preparation activities resulted in delays, but also in lessons learned for ground operations personnel, including hardware deliveries, cable routing, transferred work and custodial paperwork. Ares I-X also proved to be a resource challenge, as individuals and ground service equipment (GSE) supporting the mission also were required for Shuttle or Atlas V operations at LC 40/41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. At LC 39B, several Shuttle-specific access arms were removed and others were added to accommodate the in-line Ares vehicle. Ground command, control, and communication (GC3) hardware was incorporated into the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP). The lightning protection system at LC 39B was replaced by a trio of 600-foot-tall towers connected by a catenary wire to account for the much greater height of the vehicle. Like Shuttle, Ares I-X will be stacked on a MLP and rolled out to the pad on a Saturn-era crawler-transporter. While Ares I-X was only held in place by the four hold-down posts on its aft skirt during rollout, a new vehicle stabilization system (VSS) attached to the vertical service structure kept the vehicle from undue swaying prior to launch at the pad, LC 39B. Following the launch, the flight test vehicle first stage was recovered with the aid of new parachutes resized to accommodate the five-segment-long first stage, which had a much greater length and mass than the Shuttle s reusable solid rocket boosters. After splashdown, recovery divers exercised extra care when handling the first stage to ensure that the flight data recorders in the fifth segment simulator were not damaged by exposure to sea water. The data recovered from the Ares I-X flight test will be very valuable in verifying the predicted environments and models used to design the vehicle. Lessons learned from Ares I-X will be shared with the Ares Projects through written and verbal reports and through integration of mission team members into the Project workforce.

Davis, Stephan R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach for Defining IASMS Services, Functions, and Capabilities

Assuring safety in the NAS with the inclusion of new entrants, such as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), will require overcoming unique safety challenges that result from combining innovative technologies with novel airspace concepts for moving people and cargo using autonomous vehicles. The focus of the In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) is to overcome AAM’s safety assurance challenges. The IASMS Concept of Operations (ConOps) describes an interconnected set of services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) designed to manage operational risks, identify unknown risks, and inform system designs. This paper describes an approach for defining SFCs based on technology trends in research, assessment of known and unknown risks in voluntary safety reports, and causal and contributing factors in aviation accidents and incidents. This approach would identify potential SFCs that further expand the Monitor, Assess, and Mitigate (M-A-M) functionality that represents the enabling framework of the IASMS. Safety implications that will result from integration of AAM in the transformation of the National Airspace System (NAS) were addressed in National Academies committees reports on AAM and IASMS. Development of a ConOps for IASMS was a top recommendation and can be represented as a reframing of safety assurance that builds on real-time alerting such as the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, and adds the more encompassing in-time temporal parameter in recognition of the different timelines for collecting and assessing safety data for risk mitigations. For example, mining for safety trends from data sources such as the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing system occurs over a longer time period. Research on AAM operations poses that SFCs can be designed to monitor the safety margin appropriate for AAM including with regards to the distance between current flight parameters and nominal ideal conditions. These in-time comparisons will become more complex as the density of operations increases at least in certain areas and can include planned and actual 4D trajectory, and in-time comparisons having implications on conflict modeling and prediction including expected and actual departure time, fix/waypoint crossing times, and arrival time. These comparisons would be integrated as part of SFCs that redefine and inform new safety margin. An increased safety margin improves management of operational risks while reducing the potential for anomalies. An increased safety margin also has implications for operator confidence in the certainty of its operations and trust in automation. Technology trends in research could be used to refine existing SFCs and define needs for additional SFCs that provide safety improvements to the design and operation of vehicles, airspace design, and operator performance requirements. NASA is developing innovative approaches to safeguard against major accidents and incidents that have occurred in the NAS and those anticipated with the inclusion of envisioned AAM operations. The innovations use operational performance data to monitor, detect, and predict flight variations exceeding safe nominal patterns, such as would be caused by navigational error, severe weather complications, or hijacking of UAS controls. These innovative approaches have high potential to prevent accidents and incidents in the new AAM era. It is anticipated that elements of the innovations will evolve into SFCs for the IASMS. Voluntary safety reports can be monitored to identify anomalies related to design or operational performance risks. Reports could be periodically monitored and assessed for specific topics. Reports might serve as weak signals or precursors indicative of emergent risk such as when combined with other safety information. The architecture could include SFCs that are based on voluntary safety reports recognizing the periodic temporal nature of data analysis. As previously mentioned, aviation accidents with their causal and contributing precursors can inform the need for SFCs in the IASMS. Accidents and incidents at San Francisco International Airport such as Asiana 214 and Air Canada 759 illustrate how combinations of different factors lead to increased risk. These types of precursors and different factors have implications on the types of SFCs that could be needed to monitor and manage different sources and types of design and operational risk. Continuing to assure the safety of AAM as designs and operations gain in complexity can be accompanied by defining SFCs that also increase in complexity. These SFCs can leverage information from findings and recommendations synthesized across on-going research, voluntary safety reports, and accident and incident reports. These SFCs can serve to refine accuracy of algorithms and resolve limitations with current practices. The IASMS architecture represents the framework for the SFCs and their critical role in safety assurance.

In-Time Aviation Safety Management System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tours of High-containment and Pristine Facilities in Support of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Definition Studies

During 2019 and 2020, the NASA Tiger Team RAMA (acronym of the authors) toured several high-containment biosafety laboratories and pristine space-mission facilities worldwide to better understand their practices, capabilities, and lessons-learned to aid in planning a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) in support of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The team also included tours of a manufacturer of mobile and modular high-containment facilities as well as manufacturers of isolators and gloveboxes. In addition, the team visited the European Space Agency (ESA)ultraclean and sterile ISO 3 / airborne molecular contamination -9 (AMC-9) isolator line to clean and assemble the most critical hardware for ESA’s ExoMars Mars Lander System, and researchers developing a novel double-walled isolator (DWI) and robotic handling techniques in support of an MSR SRF. The RAMA team visits covered several construction modalities for an MSR SRF: (1) a new traditional fixed facility; (2) use of an existing fixed Biosafety Level 4(BSL-4) facility; (3) a novel modular BSL-4 approach; and (4) a hybrid combination of fixed, modular, and existing facilities. A new fixed facility approach can be tailored to MSR’s needs and is the approach used by all U.S. BSL-4 laboratories constructed to date. However, this approach could be the most expensive modality, take the longest to implement (8-12 years), and have significant programmatic risk of delay. The utilization of an existing BSL-4 facility may be possible depending on the final contamination control and science requirements for the MSR SRF. Due to the internal dimensions of the labs visited and facility structural requirements, it is unlikely that any modification can be made to the facility to meet cleanliness requirements. Furthermore, due to possible construction delays, possible capacity issues, and potential cross contamination vectors from in-house select agents, there may also be significant programmatic risks for sharing an existing facility. Another approach is building a contemporary modular facility. This is a novel approach that has recently been used for a BSL-3/3Ag facilities. The modular elements would be installed in a traditional building or shell structure. A modular facility has many advantages over a traditional fixed facility with lower costs, shorter design/construction/ commissioning schedule, and flexibility for easier retrofits and future expansion. Lastly, a hybrid approach of combining the use of either: (1) a modular facility inside a new fixed facility or (2) a modular and/or fixed BSL-4 annex in conjunction with an existing BSL-4 space should be considered. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the facility could leverage the strengths of other approaches. Beyond facility construction approaches, the RAMA team investigated technologies and techniques for isolating and handling Martian samples in pristine environments. For example, ESA has been studying and developing a DWI breadboard along with other sample-handling technologies. The research and development investment for clean, remote manipulation and robotics at the start of the facility design phase would be beneficial to the SRF. Additionally, under-standing the lessons learned from Thales Alenia Space during the construction and operation of the most advanced state-of-the-art precision cleaning, sterilization, and assembly glovebox isolators ever developed for spacecraft hardware are also critical for the SRF. The RAMA team lays out a summary of the 18 facilities toured, and includes 43 observations,18 findings, and 22 areas of possible follow-up that the RAMA team and others could pursue to enable further findings. The observations and findings illustrate that constructing an MSR SRF would combine the complexity of both high-containment and pristine facilities, and merging these technologies would be challenging, but achievable.

Mars Sample Return↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dataset 3: A National Dataset on Actionable Items in Improving Pooled Rideshare, 2025.

Dataset 3: A National Dataset on Actionable Items in Improving Pooled Rideshare.” 2025. Dataset Description: Pooled Rideshare Acceptance Survey - Phase 3 (2025, N = 8,296). This dataset represents the third and final phase of a national survey aimed at understanding user acceptance and preferences related to pooled rideshare (PR) services in the United States. Building on insights from earlier phases, this phase expands both the sample size and the depth of analysis to support policymaking, transportation planning, and service design for sustainable mobility systems. The Phase 3 survey was administered online to a nationally representative sample of 8,296 U.S. adults. The sample includes a wide range of demographics. The survey retained core questions from previous phases while introducing 77 detailed service features (actionable items) to evaluate potential improvements to PR offerings. Each feature was designed to assess whether a specific improvement, such as enhanced safety measures, real-time ride tracking, or user training would increase participants’ willingness to adopt PR services. In addition, behavioral predictors, current rideshare habits, environmental attitudes, and perceived barriers (e.g., safety, privacy, and comfort) were captured. - Phase_3_Final - The dataset contains rows corresponding to individual respondents and columns representing survey items, demographic characteristics, and response values. The data is available in both .CSV and .SAV formats. - Phase_3_Final_MapFile - Accompanying this dataset is a data dictionary explaining each variable, value range, and coding schema. An .XLSX format of the full survey instrument is included to support interpretation and reuse of the dataset.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2026

Parametric-Based Heat Rejection Trade Study for Lunar and Martian Surface Operations

Establishing and maintaining a sustained presence on the lunar and/or Martian surfaces will require a diverse portfolio of surface elements (e.g., habitation, mobility, power generation, etc.). Many of these systems generate excess heat that must be rejected across a wide range of magnitudes, temperatures, and duty cycles and under variable environmental conditions. To identify the most promising heat rejection approaches for this diverse portfolio, a heat rejection trade study was conducted to evaluate the performance of different technology approaches across a spectrum of surface environments and heat-load requirements. The trade study consisted of three stages: (1) development of a parametric-based modeling framework, (2) creation of a database of heat rejection technologies, surface elements, and environmental conditions for the Moon and Mars, and (3) execution of a quantitative analysis of various heat rejection technologies across different operating conditions and surface elements. The modeling framework is developed in Python and Excel to prioritize small model size and hence low computational cost to enable large parametric sweeps while avoiding the reliance on proprietary software. Individual heat rejection processes are represented as simple Excel models, and a centralized Python script interfaces with the models to coordinate the parametric study. These simple sizing models were developed to take heat load requirements and environmental parameters as inputs and compute mass, power, and volume as outputs. Rather than assess each heat rejection technology separately for each surface element, a unified parametric space was developed to evaluate all technologies across all elements. This parametric space includes factors related to heat load (e.g., magnitude or temperature) and environment (e.g., surface temperature, sky temperature, solar flux). This effort generated a database containing information on over 60 heat rejection technologies and 30 surface elements. For each surface element, the expected heat rejection requirements were documented and analyzed to determine the most common needs shared across all elements. Environmental conditions at various lunar and Martian latitudes were also established for worst-case hot and worst-case cold scenarios. High-fidelity heat rejection models are currently under development. Preliminary trades between heat rejection technologies including radiators, venting technologies, convective coolers, and more have been conducted to identify promising options. This presentation will summarize the preliminary trade results and provide an overview and discussion of the expected heat loads and thermal environments for sustained surface operations on the Moon and Mars.

Heat Rejection↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing DOE Opportunities to Research Land–Atmosphere Interactions in the U.S. Southeast (Workshop Report)

The southeastern United States (Southeast), with its complex and varied environments, is an area of tremendous economic, ecological, and societal importance to the country. The region is characterized by heterogeneous landscapes (i.e., geology and soil type) and a long history of human land use coupled with a warm temperature regime and high precipitation. As a result, soil erosion and deposition are pronounced, vegetation recovery is rapid, and human modification is extensive across the region. To better understand land–atmosphere interactions in this important and complex region, research communities supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program identified the Southeast as a priority region of interest. In fall 2024, the third Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Mobile Facility (AMF3), one of three mobile monitoring facilities designed to collect atmospheric and climate data from undersampled regions around the world, will begin operations in northwestern Alabama’s Bankhead National Forest (BNF). The AMF3-BNF 5-year deployment, from 2024–2029, will monitor the effects of feedbacks among aerosols, clouds, and precipitation on plant physiology and canopy-scale fluxes. It will also focus on scale aggregation to resolve the role of local forcing on larger-scale processes. To enable broader AMF3 involvement by the science community, the BER Environmental System Science (ESS) program organized the Southeast Land– Atmosphere Research Opportunities (SELARO) workshop in August 2023. The purpose was to identify gaps in scientific understanding of terrestrial processes in the Southeast (defined as states bounded by the Gulf of Mexico to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to east, the Mississippi River to the west, and extending through Tennessee and North Carolina to the north) and explore opportunities to use the AMF3-BNF deployment to coordinate and leverage research efforts across the region. Many parts of the Southeast have experienced repeated anthropogenic forcings. Farming, hunting, burning, and settlement of the region by Indigenous Peoples first shaped the distribution of plant communities, which in turn influenced European colonization patterns. Timber harvesting was common during the expansion of European settlements, and production forestry continues today. Agricultural production was extensive and then waned through the 20th century, creating a period of afforestation following agricultural abandonment. Today, many formerly agricultural landscapes are undergoing rapid urbanization and suburbanization. Overlying these patterns of anthropogenic land use are frequent disturbances from hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, drought, flooding, ice storms, and the occasional blizzard. An additional characteristic of the Southeast is its overall landscape complexity. Unlike the western United States, where broad expanses may share similar characteristics, Southeast topography, drainage patterns, vegetation, and development patterns vary widely across relatively small spatial scales (<1 km). This is due to the region’s underlying geology and soil development, species biodiversity patterns, and land ownership and use coupled with strong forces of erosion, weathering, and rapid plant growth in the warm, wet climate.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2019

Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) Phase 2 Technology Description Document (TDD)

This Technology Description Document (TDD) provides an overview of the technology for the Phase 1 Baseline and Phase 2 Fused demonstrations of the Integrated Arrival, Departure, and Surface (IADS) prototype system of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) project, which has been demonstrated since October of 2017 at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT). Development, integration, and field demonstration of relevant technologies of the IADS system directly address recommendations made by the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Integration Working Group (NIWG) on Surface and Data Sharing and the Surface Collaborative Decision Making (Surface CDM) concept of operations developed jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and aviation industry partners. NASA has been developing the IADS traffic management system under the ATD-2 project in coordination with the FAA, flight operators, CLT airport operators, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). The primary goal of ATD-2 is to improve the predictability and operational efficiency of the air traffic system in metroplex environments, through the enhancement, development, and integration of the nation’s most advanced and sophisticated arrival, departure, and surface prediction, scheduling, and management systems. The ATD-2 project is a 5-year research activity beginning in 2015 and extending through 2020. The Phase 1 Baseline IADS capability resulting from the ATD-2 research has been demonstrated at the CLT airport since the beginning of October 2017. Phase 1 provided data exchange and integration with the initial demonstration of the integrated system of strategic and tactical scheduling, collaborative tactical surface metering, tactical departure scheduling to an en route meter point and overhead stream insertion, initial integration of a TFDM SWIM prototype feed, and an early implementation prototype of a Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM) Electronic Flight Data (EFD) system. The strategic surface scheduling element of the capability is consistent with the Surface CDM Concept of Operations published in 2014 by the FAA Surface Operations Directorate.1 The Phase 2 Fused IADS system provided substantial updates to baseline IADS Demonstration capability. Improvements were made to the IADS modeler; tactical surface scheduling, and metering; tactical departure scheduling for overhead stream insertion; Electronic Flight Data (EFD) and the integration with the FAA Advanced Electronic Flight Strip (AEFS); RTC/RMTC, and departure trajectories. New capabilities included a TFDM SWIM prototype feed and delivery of IADS data via the TFDM Terminal Publication (TTP) service of the FAA’s SWIM system; strategic surface scheduling and metering as well as fusion with tactical surface metering; integration and ingestion of data from TTP-connected Mobile App and texting industry for General Aviation (GA) flights; and expansion of airspace deployments to include adjacent Center automation, in particular interface with the Atlanta Center (ZTL) arrival metering TBFM system to evaluate pre-scheduling of flights. Improvements in Data Analysis and System Health (DASH) monitoring and updates were completed as well.

Talebi, Ehsan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human-Autonomy Teaming Research in Support of m:N Operations

Since 2019, the NASA and industry partners have been involved in research focused on a novel paradigm for operations of remotely piloted aircraft. This paradigm involves multiple people sharing a fleet of multiple vehicles between them. Referred to as m:N (pronounced “em-to-en”), this configuration describes a ratio where m is the number of operators and N is the number of vehicles. Through force and asset multiplication, the m:N concept seeks to enable a scalable and resilient operation of remotely crewed vehicles. The primary means of obtaining such a robust operation is through allowing a flexible crew of variable size to dynamically attend to the needs of assets in while performing real-time operator workload management. It is in that sense that assets are shared between operators: as needed (such as in events of elevated workload) an operator in an m:N context can “handoff” the responsibility for some amount of assets, nh < N, to be absorbed by the m – 1 crew members on staff. At some time later, these nh assets could be returned to their original owner or they may be further distributed to other crew if called for by the mission. During this panel, I will elaborate on the research activity undertaken by the Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center over the previous three years. The studies conducted by the HAT Lab range from interviews with subject matter experts, a cognitive walkthrough, a task analysis, and two simulation experiments to-date. During experimentation, pilots made use of an advanced Ground Control Station developed by the HAT Lab and industry partners to simulate m:N operations in two large, metropolitan areas of Southern California: Los Angeles and San Diego. Further experimentation planned over the next few years. Results from our research to-date indicates that pilots of a moderately sized fleet of about a dozen remotely crewed aircraft adequately maintained safety performance and situation awareness of their aircraft, even when presented with unexpected situations of heightened workload.

multi-vehicle control↗