Results for “nuclear reaction rates” — Page 16

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Access to Space for NASA Small Sats: Current and Future Needs

Small spacecraft technology advancements have fundamentally shifted how NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) executes science investigations. To support this approach, the SMD Rideshare Office (SRO) was established in 2020 to lead the definition and implementation of a directorate-wide rideshare strategy. Serving as the central point of contact for coordinating compatible NASA payloads with launch opportunities, the SRO maximizes science, exploration, and technology return on investment by enabling rideshare or other access to space opportunities for small spacecraft on SMD primary mission launches, VADR commercial launch procurements, and other government agency launch opportunities. As NASA seeks to reduce costs and increase the rate of discovery, small satellites and multi manifest access to space have become integral to achieving the agency’s strategic vision. While NASA has created the above-mentioned mechanisms to expand access to space and achieve lower launch costs for its small satellites, many factors have limited full exploit of the opportunity these mechanisms can bring. NASA continues to evolve its mission cultures and technical requirements to adapt and take advantage of burgeoning commercial launch and rideshare advancements. To do so NASA requires collaboration with small satellite manufacturers, principal investigators, and commercial industry partners. Current needs include technical development and design of structurally robust spacecraft buses capable of withstanding varied launch loads, which will increase rideshare interchangeability and versatility. Further, instrument and spacecraft designs must also evolve to handle diverse launch environments and loads factors, while reducing reliance on complex purge and cleanliness constraints, sensitivities to silicones and hydrocarbons, and magnetic requirements. Continued maturation of small and medium launch providers in the near-term is also essential to drive down costs through competition. The current mission selection cadence often complicates the ability to synchronize multiple missions on a single launch. Future needs can include affordable space maneuverability options such as enhanced spacecraft propulsion systems and unique orbital maneuvering capabilities for our individual smallsats or constellations. These emerging capabilities offer a path to unique science orbits for NASA small satellites, but only under the condition that their cost remains affordable and competitive to accommodate inherently smaller mission budgets. Additionally, the projected surge of multiple SMD small satellites launching simultaneously and to unique deep space science orbits necessitates evaluation of expanding deep space communications capabilities. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of NASA SMD’s access to space landscape and offers further unique insights and discussion, backed by NASA rideshare experiences and lessons learned, on the current and future developments required to unleash the full potential of rideshare opportunities.

Rideshare↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Open Innovation in Reducing Risk to Crews

In the exploration of destinations outside of Earth's neighborhood, specifically Mars, scientific and engineering inquiries have occurred by two means; observations from satellites and observations by landed spacecraft. Satellite observations (Mariner, MRO, Mars Odyssey, provide global-scale spatial and temporal data while landed spacecraft (Viking, Mars Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix Mars Lander) investigate highly localized areas of the surface of the planet. In preparation for human exploration, extensive knowledge of the surface and atmospheric environments should be known before the first human leaves Earth. The primary goal of performing reconnaissance on Mars on a sub-global scale is to know as much as possible about the environment to which crews will be subjected. At the current rate of launching and landing probes to Mars, it will take a very long time to understand the surface and atmospheric conditions associated with the regions where prospective crews may land. Meanwhile electronics and electrical systems are rapidly getting smaller. One can argue that to acquire the knowledge of the region, one must take hundreds, maybe thousands of measurements simultaneously. One means to perform such a task is to deploy a swarm of sensors. Such a swarm would perform an in-situ assessment of the region. Imagine a close flyby mission to Mars for example, where mini- to micro-sensors are deposited into the atmosphere over half an orbit or more. The sensors, captured by the atmospheric drag and Martian gravity slowly descend buffeted about by Martian winds and weather until they settle on the surface a great time later (think of how long dust takes to settle). As they descend they communicate a vast array of data; temperature, chemistry, pressure, radiation dose, electric or magnetic properties from a region of the planet and an individual sensor need not measure the same quantity as its neighbors. Initially, they could move at the whim of the environment but later versions could have locomotion or propulsion mechanisms. Humans wouldn't need to decide where the sensors go, the sensors do that for themselves. This is a key strength of a sensor swarm. The intelligence relies on the group not on a decision maker on earth. Real time sensor inputs direct what the swarm considers most interesting to investigate resulting in emergent behavior. We issued a $20,000 challenge to the global innovators to provide solutions as to how such a swarm could be initialized and by what protocols and methodologies by which they operate. Over 400 innovators from 49 countries took a look at the problem, with three receiving partial awards for solutions.

Mel Ferebee↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype

Automating prelaunch diagnostics for launch vehicles offers three potential benefits. First, it potentially improves safety by detecting faults that might otherwise have been missed so that they can be corrected before launch. Second, it potentially reduces launch delays by more quickly diagnosing the cause of anomalies that occur during prelaunch processing. Reducing launch delays will be critical to the success of NASA's planned future missions that require in-orbit rendezvous. Third, it potentially reduces costs by reducing both launch delays and the number of people needed to monitor the prelaunch process. NASA is currently developing the Ares I launch vehicle to bring the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts to low-earth orbit on their way to the moon. Ares I-X will be the first unmanned test flight of Ares I. It is scheduled to launch on October 27, 2009. The Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype is a prototype ground diagnostic system that will provide anomaly detection, fault detection, fault isolation, and diagnostics for the Ares I-X first-stage thrust vector control (TVC) and for the associated ground hydraulics while it is in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and on the launch pad. It will serve as a prototype for a future operational ground diagnostic system for Ares I. The prototype combines three existing diagnostic tools. The first tool, TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System), is a model-based tool that is commercially produced by Qualtech Systems, Inc. It uses a qualitative model of failure propagation to perform fault isolation and diagnostics. We adapted an existing TEAMS model of the TVC to use for diagnostics and developed a TEAMS model of the ground hydraulics. The second tool, Spacecraft Health Inference Engine (SHINE), is a rule-based expert system developed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We developed SHINE rules for fault detection and mode identification. The prototype uses the outputs of SHINE as inputs to TEAMS. The third tool, the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), is an anomaly detection tool developed at NASA Ames Research Center and is currently used to monitor the International Space Station Control Moment Gyroscopes. IMS automatically "learns" a model of historical nominal data in the form of a set of clusters and signals an alarm when new data fails to match this model. IMS offers the potential to detect faults that have not been modeled. The three tools have been integrated and deployed to Hangar AE at KSC where they interface with live data from the Ares I-X vehicle and from the ground hydraulics. The outputs of the tools are displayed on a console in Hangar AE, one of the locations from which the Ares I-X launch will be monitored. In a previous publication, we discussed how we selected the three tools based primarily on their ability to be certified for human spaceflight and described our plans for the prototype. This abstract is due October 23, 2009, and the Ares I-X launch is currently scheduled for October 27, 2009. If this abstract is accepted, then the full paper will describe how the prototype performed before the launch. It will include an analysis of the prototype's accuracy, including false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. It will also include a description of the prototype's computational requirements, including CPU usage, main memory usage, and disk usage. If the prototype detects any faults during the prelaunch period then the paper will include a description of those faults. Similarly, if the prototype has any false alarms then the paper will describe them and will attempt to explain their causes. Also, the paper will describe the three tools and how they are used in the prototype. It will include a description of the TEAMS models of the Ares I-X first-stage TVC and associated ground hydraulics and how we adapted the TVC model for use in real-time diagnostics. It will describe the SHINE rules used for fault detection and mode identification and the software architecture that interfaces the various pieces of existing software that are part of the prototype to one another. It will describe how we selected the sensor values and commands that were used to train the IMS model and how we optimized the number of clusters in the IMS model. It will include screen shots of the graphical display that we developed in Java to display the outputs of the three tools. Because Ares I-X data was not yet available to us while we were developing the prototype, we used historical data from the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) TVCs and the associated ground hydraulics to train IMS and to test the entire prototype. Because most of the failure modes that we modeled have never occurred in the Shuttle we inserted simulated failures into the Shuttle data. The Ares I-X first-stage TVC is very similar to the SRB TVC and we expect the data will be very similar. After the launch, we will determine how similar the data actually is and report how any differences in the data affected the diagnostic accuracy of the prototype. Finally, although we did not get the prototype certified, we designed it in a way that it could be certified and wrote a preliminary certification plan. The paper will include a brief summary of how we considered the need for certification in the design of the prototype, how we tested the prototype before deploying it to Hangar AE, and how we would propose to get it certified if it were deployed as an operational system. The paper will conclude with a description of some of the challenges we faced and some of the lessons learned in developing and deploying the prototype.

International Space Station↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

vaned diffuser↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

centrifugal compressor↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster↗

NASA NTRS2026

Machine Learning for Predicting Team Functioning in HERA Missions

Team functioning is integral to success in future long term space exploration missions. Proactively detecting declines in team functioning can mitigate conflict and ensure mission success. This project developed a speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that unobtrusively predicts degradation in team functioning, including performance and cohesion, in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5. The AI system conducted automated analysis of the prosodic (tone of voice) and linguistic (language content) components of speech, modeling interpersonal dynamics at both the turn-taking and day-wide levels. We investigated team functioning via observing structured interactions (i.e., multi-mission space exploration vehicle-extra vehicular activity [MMSEV-EVA], team interaction battery [TIB]) and unstructured interactions before the MMSEV-EVA task. We developed machine learning models to predict team functioning (objective task accuracy, self reported team efficacy and self reported team cohesion) by analyzing OpenSmile acoustic features, linguistic descriptors extracted via the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) dictionary, and semantic embeddings. In the TIB, static models using logistic regression and random forests were not able to predict task accuracy, but predicted team efficacy and cohesion during both the decision making and relational tasks to a moderate level (60-70%). Majority voting on the individual turns to predict day long team efficacy further increased accuracies (70-80%). Finally, long short-term memory (LSTM) models showed the best performance across all variables (80-91%), including task performance. In the MMSEV-EVA, static models achieved an accuracy of 60% with majority voting, which increased to 80% through the incorporation of mission day as a variable, accounting for the learning effect. A key finding across both tasks was the "team-dependent" nature of these interactions; models achieved much higher accuracy when trained on prior days of the same team's data rather than attempting to generalize across entirely different teams, with even 1-2 days of prior data per team achieving 5-15% improvement over team-independent models. In addition, the incorporation of pre-task data from the same team also improves model performance, e.g., incorporating data from the decision-making task of the TIB, which preceded the relational task, improved the prediction of team efficacy and cohesion during the latter. We compared model performance when trained on machine-generated data compared to data that had been further corrected by human annotators. Overall, models trained on human-corrected data exhibited a modest improvement in performance, particularly when acoustic features were used. We found no significant correlation between word error rate (WER) and model accuracy (r(55) = -0.08, p = 0.51), but model’s accuracy was significantly higher for medium/high quality transcription (0.74 (SD = 0.48)) compared to the low-quality group (0.64 (SD = 0.36)) (t(63)=2.82, p = 0.006). Based on these, several design recommendation emerge, that could inform Standards at NASA. Models predicting team functioning should incorporate at least one to two days of historical interaction data, include brief pre-task discussions, and explicitly model temporal learning effects, especially for longer operational tasks. Minimum quality standards for automated speech-processing pipelines are needed, given the performance gains observed with manually corrected acoustic data. Finally, systems should leverage both acoustic features and language embeddings in complementary ways, with modality choices and fusion strategies tailored to mission context, task demands, and data quality requirements.

Shrivatsa Mishra↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigating Laser Beam Welding as an In-Space Joining Technique via Thermal Vacuum and Microgravity and Vacuum Experiments

In-space joining technologies are crucial for stimulating an in-space economy and for enabling sustained space exploration by in-space manufacturing and repair of metallic structures. Compared to brazing or soldering, in-space welding (ISW) can provide highly hermetic, strong, and complex joints, potentially without introducing additional material. However, the influence of extreme temperatures, reduced pressure, and reduced gravity on ISW is not yet fully elucidated. Several efforts at NASA are investigating laser beam welding (LBW) as a joining and repair method in both thermal vacuum (TVAC) and combined vacuum & reduced gravity environments. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) shepherded several ISW projects in its past, including the 1973 electron beam welding on Skylab, the 1989 low-power LBW on parabolic flights, and the unflown 1990s-era In-Space Welding Experiment. Recent parabolic flights and 3 degree-of-freedom ground testing build upon this heritage. A collaboration with the Ohio State University using NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) hardware retrofitted for LBW achieved the first high-powered laser welds under vacuum and low gravity and developed a workforce capable developing such experimental hardware. A ground testing campaign at the MSFC Flat Floor simulated fit-up and welding representative of ISW in 3 degrees of freedom to emulate microgravity effects on inertial systems. One ongoing effort is a NASA Early Career Initiative project – Lunar Assembly and Servicing by Autonomous Robotics (LASAR). Ruggedized LBW components were developed by an external partner for use in TVAC. A TVAC-rated robotic arm was procured by MSFC and used in the first known robotic laser weld where all components save the laser generator were under vacuum. NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is advancing supervised autonomy of ISW. NASA LaRC continues to adapt their unique snowflake joint geometry, suitable for connecting segments in trusses and other structures, to LBW. Upcoming TVAC campaigns will focus on testing extreme temperatures, proving out autonomous operations, and demonstrating weld repair. Weld inspection will occur via a non-contact nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technique – electromagnetic acoustic transduction (EMAT). Another ongoing effort based at MSFC is the DISCMAN -- DIsk-Shaped Configurable and Modular vAcuum uNit – which seeks to development a compact, modular payload that can provide a vacuum environment while in a reduced gravity condition. This payload could support multiple in-space manufacturing developmental efforts, with the first demonstration technology being LBW. Currently, the design is targeting operations in the pressurized volume of a space station, but the payload could readily be adapted to other flight platforms such as parabolic or even suborbital vehicles. LASAR elucidates the effects of temperature and vacuum on LBW while DISCMAN probes those of vacuum and gravity. Through these complementary efforts, NASA is addressing the primary challenges of ISW across the space environment while simultaneously developing and maturing technologies including robotic systems and inspection methodologies for future practical implementation on the Moon and beyond. This approach is timely, as upcoming missions requiring sustained human presence in space will depend on reliable ISW capabilities to create robust metallic joints currently unproven in the space environment and to perform repairs in situ .

hypogravity↗