Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GSFC”

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 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA GSFC SmallSats – A NOS 3 Case Study

The NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites (NOS 3 ) has now been in existence since 2016. It was originally developed as one of the main goals of the Simulation-To-Flight 1 CubeSat effort. Subsequently, portions of NOS 3 were released as open source (https://github.com/nasa/nos3) in 2018. Beginning in 2019, NOS 3 was used for the development of a number of NASA CubeSats. This presentation will describe the use of NOS 3 in that development. It will describe how NOS 3 was used to develop and test numerous components for the CubeSats including the development of hardware component simulators. It will describe the benefits of using NOS 3 for component development. It will also describe how NOS 3 was used for integrating attitude control system software with flight software. This included executing closed loop attitude control for the CubeSats using simulated hardware sensors and actuators. The benefits of using NOS 3 for this integration will also be described.

NOS3↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How Can We Efficiently Build A Spacecraft That Has Longevity? Experiences From the GSFC Perspective to Inform Lunar Exploration and Science Orbiter’s Architecture

Recent successes in NASA planetary science missions has shown that long-lived missions can yield significant science return. These missions, despite their longevity, were not planned to operate beyond their deign life. For example, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has a design life of 2-3 years, and yet we are entering its 14th year on orbit. Spacecraft longevity in practice has been related to: 1) mission class; 2) did we test it long enough and resolve all the anomalies to be beyond the early failure curve; 3) consumables budgets, and 4) how components are de-signed and tested. Mission class has been perceived as one of the primary ways to drive longevity. But higher mission class is a significant cost and mission driver. Parts selection only from the limited military standard parts and extensive parts qualification adds to development time and cost. Largely redundant (often erroneously interpreted as fully redundant) adds to launch mass and increases testing complexity (which may reduce the amount of testing in the nominal con-figuration). Lower Risk Posture (reflected in a higher mission class) drives significant additional processes and quality assurance analyses. Higher mission class also drives significantly greater sparing and life testing costs. This discussion focuses on whether this is indeed the best way to achieve longevity efficiently or whether there are more efficient ways to achieve longevity. Empirical evidence shows that lower mission classes that implement effective risk reduction and selective redundancy generally results in long life at a lower Spacecraft bus cost. By evaluating redundancy careful-ly, spacecraft cost can be lowered which can enable a more capable payload. Risk of the mission is highly dependent on the complexity of the mission and is only loosely dependent on Class of Mission. High complexity missions can have many single point failures and require the development of new technology, while lower class mission can have lower risk by baselining or incorporating: (selective) redundancy, fault-tolerant design, design for minimum risk, ability to reset, and/or design for graceful degradation. The team met with Goddard Space Flight Center Space Systems Mission Operations leaders to discuss which avionics have proven in flight to be the most reliable and which have had lifetime issues. The paper proposes a list of components to focus on for redundancy for a long-lived lunar mission. Reliability numbers are presented for both single string and dual string missions. The history of life-time performance versus planned mission life according to mission class is presented. A mission with well thought out selective redundancy and effective on the ground test program, can be expected to last well beyond its mission lifetime and provided enhanced return for the community. This approach minimizes project expenditures that do not retire significant risk and allows the project to focus risk mitigation efforts on those risks that will have a significant likelihood of threatening mission success. This is aided by keeping the amount of technology maturation and mission complexity low, while focusing effort on ensuring all component stress-ing parameters well within the bounds of their capabilities.

Lessons Learned↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automatic Processing of Intensives at GSFC VLBI Analysis Center

VLBI Intensive (INT) sessions are conducted to determine the change in Earth rotation, which is measured as a correction to UT1. This correction varies unpredictably over time. Because UT1 is used in precise navigation, particularly GNSS, rapid turnaround is very important. The decrease of time elapsed from observations to obtained results can be shortened with the automatic data processing of new INT sessions at the analysis stage.

VLBI↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Green Propulsion : A NASA GSFC Assessment

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft applications. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine is a dependable propellant. Bi-propellant architectures offer even superior performance, but add the complexity of a hypergolic fuel (hydrazine/ mono-methyl hydrazine) and oxidizer (Nitrogen Tetroxide/ mixed oxides of nitrogen) dual tank combination. These propulsion system designs (mono-propellant and bi-propellant) have high heritage, high propellant throughput qualified engines, widely tested material compatibility, qualified fluid delivery commercial-off-the-shelf components, known handling practices, and repeatable performance in successfully delivering on mission requirements. NASA and the broader propulsion community have historically selected hypergolic propellants for most mission applications. The space propulsion community has learned to successfully handle these highly toxic and hazardous materials, navigate the regulated use and the associated safety protocols, personnel protective equipment, and unique training standards – all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with hypergolic propellants. The question now arises as to what is next for in-space chemical propulsion? Is there an alternative, or even replacement, to the reliable hypergolic fluids, or propellant alternatives that promise increased mission benefits? With the evolution and proven advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies capable of delivering benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and infusibility of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As NASA science missions move forward with the potential flight infusion of green propulsion, NASA and the broader propulsion community are working to address remaining gaps in hardware development, reliability, performance, unique operational considerations, and risk mitigations for high value scientific assets.

Henry W. Mulkey↗