Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “risk mitigation”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Workshop on the Role of Design Assurance in System-Wide Safety’s Safety Demonstrator Series

This report summarizes a three-hour hybrid in-person/online workshop on June 7, 2024 on the topic of design assurance and the Safety Demonstrator Series (SDS), which was held at NASA Ames Research Center. The SDS provides an operational demonstration of, and recommendations for, requirements and standards necessary to monitor, assess, and mitigate risks to assure safety in disaster-oriented operations. Over sixty NASA personnel participated in the workshop. Four main topics were discussed: (1) assurance needs for the Safety Demonstrator Series, (2) assurance and the In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS), (3) in-time assurance: existing efforts and future opportunities, and (4) demonstrating assurance tools in the Safety Demonstrators. Key takeaways are as follows: 1. Design assurance tools can be used to assure an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System, the systems that comprise it, and other systems or missions. Assurance must consider both systems and components and include the interactions between elements in both a systems/aircraft context and a systems-of-systems/airspace context. 2. Design-time assurance activities can support the identification of monitors needed for operational assurance activities (i.e., the “monitor” function in the monitor-assess-mitigate paradigm at the heart of the IASMS concept). 3. A major opportunity for design-time assurance tools to contribute to the IASMS concept is to support rapid re-validation of systems. This will be particularly important for (1) supporting novel operations in the IASMS, where operational data may disprove design-time assumptions (motivating re-analysis of system safety) and (2) adapting technologies (e.g., AI/ML for autonomous operations) to new operational domains, where there may be new or different safety considerations not included in the initial scope of operations. 4. There are several design assurance tools under development in the System-Wide Safety project that can support assurance of Services, Functions, and Capabilities (SFCs) in the Safety Demonstrators. Transitioning these tools from one-off research projects into a functioning part of IASMS assurance will require closer integration between these tools. 5. It is not clear whether the role of design assurance tools is primarily as a part of IASMS architecture or as an external check on IASMS. The workshop consisted of four discussion topics initiated via four lightning talks by System-Wide Safety researchers. Discussions utilized Mural to engage both in-person and online participants in the hybrid format. Polls and surveys were also utilized to gather participant input. The workshop closed with a reflection activity for participants, as well as new ideas for collaboration and coordination of ongoing System-Wide Safety research.

design assurance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRS2014

Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Development Risk Communication

There are clear advantages of development of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) for a crewed mission to Mars. NTR for in-space propulsion enables more ambitious space missions by providing high thrust at high specific impulse (approximately 900 sec) that is 2 times the best theoretical performance possible for chemical rockets. Missions can be optimized for maximum payload capability to take more payload with reduced total mass to orbit; saving cost on reduction of the number of launch vehicles needed. Or missions can be optimized to minimize trip time significantly to reduce the deep space radiation exposure to the crew. NTR propulsion technology is a game changer for space exploration. However, "NUCLEAR" is a word that is feared and vilified by some groups and the hostility towards development of any nuclear systems can meet great opposition by the public as well as from national leaders and people in authority. Communication of nuclear safety will be critical to the success of the development of the NTR. Why is there a fear of nuclear? A bomb that can level a city is a scary weapon. The first and only times the Nuclear Bomb was used in a war was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2. The "Little Boy" atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki 3 days later on August 9th. Within the first 4 months of bombings, 90- 166 thousand people died in Hiroshima and 60-80 thousand died in Nagasaki. It is important to note for comparison that over 500 thousand people died and 5 million made homeless due to strategic bombing (approximately 150 thousand tons) of Japanese cities and war assets with conventional non-nuclear weapons between 1942- 1945. A major bombing campaign of "firebombing" of Tokyo called "Operation Meetinghouse" on March 9 and 10 consisting of 334 B-29's dropped approximately1,700 tons of bombs around 16 square mile area and over 100 thousand people have been estimated to have died. The declaration of death is very clear for conventional weapons and then the declaration of death due to radiation becomes vague and unclear. This may have been due to people mis-understanding the dangers and effects of radiation when assessing the damage and harm to people initially, but it is also become insidious when expressing opposition to nuclear energy. A nuclear radiation accident can be scary due to the power involved and the fear of radiation release. The International Atomic Energy Agency defines a nuclear and radiation accident a "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." There have been 3 commercial nuclear reactor accidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) that stand out to the public and much of the information about the result and impact to workers, environment, and public can be misleading. Often information is presented without clear correlation with radiation and other pertinent information is left out presenting a very scary situation to affect the emotions of the reader. A very boring but "critically acclaimed" movie was made in 1979 called "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon. The film was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the 3-Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. The basis from the movie was from a few nuclear plant incidents and in particular, the Brown's Ferry Alabama Power Plant fire. In one scene from the movie, a physicist Dr. Elliott Lowell played by Donald Hotton states that a China Syndrome event would make "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable. Real serious nuclear incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are often sited to make people fear the consequences of using nuclear power. However, the consequences are at best poorly communicated and at worst fictitiously inflated to instigate social unrest against nuclear power. There is an article being circulated on Facebook with a title "28 Signs that the (US) West Coast is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima" which focus on mis-information and fear mongering. Nuclear power and NTR are powerful resources that can open many doors for future prosperity and capability. With great power comes great responsibility. Radiation and its effects need to be better understood, quantified, and communicated. A human mission to mars has its own risks of deep space radiation and is considered a considerable risk at 400 milli-Sieverts per year in deep space and 245 milli-Sieverts per year on the surface of Mars as measured by the Mars Curiosity mission. Although these quantities of ionizing radiation are within the astronaut career limit, it exceeds the yearly average amounts of ionizing radiation. Astronaut crews have experienced these levels of radiation before, but for durations shorter than a year, and a mission to Mars could possibly be 3 years in length. There is also evidence that people can comfortably handle higher levels of ionizing radiation where the radiation occurs naturally like Ramsar, Iran when people can experience 270 milli-Sieverts per year. A risk posture that the development, test, and flight of an NTR will meet opposition from groups who oppose nuclear energy must be likely and the impact can be sever to the effort. Active risk mitigation must be taken for an NTR full-scale development project. The NTR design must take into account safety for transport and off nominal conditions. Nuclear fuel element must consider containment of fission products and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) that may meet less opposition should be considered for safety and security reasons. Even though testing was conducted on Rover/NERVA safely and successfully in the 60's with exhaust sent heavenward in to open air, modern testing of NTR must consider full containment and no release of ionizing radiation to the public and must meet the current requirement of no more than 0.1 milli-Sieverts per year to the public. 0.1 milli-Sieverts is equivalent to eating one banana or a 20 hour plane flight. Good communication with the public and regulatory agencies will be essential to show that all effort is applied toward protection to the public and astronauts. The inspiring endeavor to put humans on Mars to study the planet, search for life, and learn more about this Solar System will be full of risks but it will be worth it. NTR will be worth the development effort if it allows humans to explore our Solar System.

Kim, Tony↗
NASA NTRS2007

Gender Consideration in Experiment Design for Airbrake in Prebreathe

If gender is a confounder of the decompression sickness (DCS) or venous gas emboli (VGE) outcomes of a proposed air break in oxygen prebreathe (PB) project, then decisions about the final experiment design must be made. We evaluated if the incidence of DCS and VGE from tests in altitude chambers over 20 years were different between men and women after resting and exercise prebreathe protocols. Nitrogen washout during PB is our primary risk mitigation strategy to prevent subsequent DCS and VGE in subjects. Bubbles in the pulmonary artery (venous blood) were detected from the precordial position using Doppler ultrasound bubble detectors. The subjects were monitored for VGE for four min at about 15 min intervals for the duration of the altitude exposure, with maximum bubble grade assigned a Spencer Grade of IV. There was no difference in DCS incidence between men and women in either PB protocol. The incidence of VGE and Grade IV VGE is statistically lower in women compared to men after resting PB. Even when 10 tests were compared with Mantel-Haenszel 2 where both men (n = 168) and women (n = 92) appeared, the p-value for VGE incidence was still significant at 0.03. The incidence of VGE and Grade IV VGE is not statistically lower in women compared to men after exercise PB. Even when six tests were compared with Mantel-Haenszel x2 where both men (n = 165) and women (n = 49) appeared, the p-value for VGE incidence was still not significant at 0.90. Our goal is to understand the risk of brief air breaks during PB without other confounding variables invalidating our conclusions. The cost to additionally account for the confounding role of gender on VGE outcome after resting PB is judged excessive. Our decision is to only evaluate air breaks in the exercise PB protocol. So there is no restriction to recruiting women as test subjects.

Conkin, Johnny↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Immersive Technologies for Human-in-the-Loop Lunar Surface Simulations

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, continually seeks innovative solutions to enhance its operations, particularly in the realms of testing, evaluation, and training for future missions. Immersive technologies, such as virtual, augmented, and mixed reality have proven to be powerful tools for realistic, interactive, and engaging environments. This paper explores how the Simulation and Graphics Branch at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) leverages immersive technology, modern commercial rendering engines, and physics-based systems simulations to develop human-in-the-loop systems for humanity’s return to the Moon through the Artemis program. When NASA returns to the Moon, astronauts will travel to the Moon’s South Pole where lighting conditions will cause a more complex operational environment. Human-in-the-loop testing plays a crucial role in NASA's mission planning, spacecraft and space systems development, and evaluation of operational scenarios. The development of immersive environments such as a lunar rover mockup at a video wall enables engineers and astronauts to simulate and experience mission scenarios, integrated spacecraft systems, and operational procedures in a relevant environment before deployment. By integrating realistic virtual environments, immersive technology allows for the visualization and interaction with virtual spacecraft models, mission landscapes, and complex operational tasks. This approach helps identify potential design flaws, operational challenges, and safety considerations. It also provides valuable insights for risk reduction and helps improve mission efficiency and effectiveness. With advanced motion tracking systems and custom virtual environments data can be gathered and evaluated to help NASA refine training protocols, develop specialized training procedures and optimize human-robotic interactions for future space missions. Furthermore, immersive technology offers opportunities for future training initiatives at NASA. The Virtual Reality Laboratory at JSC has pioneered training with Virtual Reality (VR) since the Hubble Space Telescope repair missions in the early 1990’s. Extended Reality (XR) simulations enable astronauts to rehearse complex spacewalks, spacecraft maneuvers, and extravehicular activities in a safe and controlled environment. By replicating the physical and cognitive challenges of space missions, immersive training experiences enhance astronauts' situational awareness, decision-making abilities, and adaptability to unexpected scenarios. Additionally, immersive technology facilitates collaborative training, allowing geographically dispersed crew and mission control personnel to engage in synchronized simulations, fostering teamwork and effective communication. The adoption of immersive technology in NASA's testing, evaluation, and future training programs has yielded significant benefits. By incorporating human-in-the-loop testing for studies involving Extra Vehicular Activities (EVA), surface mobility and landing systems, NASA can identify and mitigate risks, optimize operational procedures, and enhance mission success. Ultimately, immersive training experiences can empower astronauts to better navigate the complexities of space missions, ensuring their safety, productivity, and success in the dynamic and challenging environments they will experience at the Lunar South Pole.

Simulation Modeling Virtual Reality Immersive Tech↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Immersive Technologies for Human-in-the-Loop Lunar Surface Simulations

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, continually seeks innovative solutions to enhance its operations, particularly in the realms of testing, evaluation, and training for future missions. Immersive technologies, such as virtual, augmented, and mixed reality have proven to be powerful tools for immersing users in realistic, interactive, and engaging environments. This paper explores how the Simulation and Graphics Branch at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) leverages immersive technology, modern commercial rendering engines, and physics-based systems simulations to develop human-in-the-loop systems for humanity’s return to the Moon through the Artemis program. When NASA returns to the Moon, astronauts will travel to the Moon’s South Pole where lighting conditions will cause a more complex operational environment. Human-in-the-loop simulations play a crucial role in NASA’s mission planning, spacecraft and space systems development, and evaluation of operational scenarios. The development of immersive environments such as a lunar rover mockup at a video wall enables engineers and astronauts to simulate and experience mission scenarios, integrated spacecraft systems, and operational procedures in a relevant environment before deployment. By integrating realistic virtual environments, immersive technology allows for the visualization and interaction with virtual spacecraft models, mission landscapes, and complex operational tasks. This approach helps identify potential design flaws, operational challenges, and safety considerations. It also provides valuable insights for risk reduction and helps improve mission efficiency and effectiveness. With advanced motion tracking systems and custom virtual environments, data can be gathered and evaluated to help NASA refine training protocols, develop specialized training procedures, and optimize human-robotic interactions for future space missions. Furthermore, immersive technology offers opportunities for future training initiatives at NASA. The Virtual Reality Laboratory at JSC has pioneered training with Virtual Reality (VR) since the Hubble Space Telescope repair missions in the early 1990’s. Extended Reality (XR) simulations enable astronauts to rehearse complex spacewalks, spacecraft maneuvers, and extravehicular activities in a safe and controlled environment. By replicating the physical and cognitive challenges of space missions, immersive training experiences enhance astronauts’ situational awareness, decision-making abilities, and adaptability to unexpected scenarios. Additionally, immersive technology facilitates collaborative training, allowing geographically dispersed crew and mission control personnel to engage in synchronized simulations, fostering teamwork and effective communication. The adoption of immersive technology in NASA’s testing, evaluation, and future training programs has yielded significant benefits. By incorporating human-in-the-loop simulations for studies involving Extra Vehicular Activities (EVA), surface mobility and landing systems, NASA can identify and mitigate risks, optimize operational procedures, and enhance mission success. Ultimately, immersive simulation experiences can empower astronauts to better navigate the complexities of space missions, ensuring their safety, productivity, and success in the dynamic and challenging environments they will experience at the Lunar South Pole.

HITL↗
NASA NTRS2012

Space Launch System Accelerated Booster Development Cycle

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA is seeking to reinvigorate the national space program and recapture the public s interest in human space exploration by developing missions to the Moon, near-earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars, and beyond. The would-be successor to the Space Shuttle, NASA s Constellation Program, planned to take humans back to the Moon by 2020, but due to budgetary constraints was cancelled in 2010 in search of a more "affordable, sustainable, and realistic" concept2. Following a number of studies, the much anticipated Space Launch System (SLS) was unveiled in September of 2011. The SLS core architecture consists of a cryogenic first stage with five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), and a cryogenic second stage using a new J-2X engine3. The baseline configuration employs two 5-segment solid rocket boosters to achieve a 70 metric ton payload capability, but a new, more capable booster system will be required to attain the goal of 130 metric tons to orbit. To this end, NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center recently released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) entitled "Space Launch System (SLS) Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction." The increased emphasis on affordability is evident in the language used in the NRA, which is focused on risk reduction "leading to an affordable Advanced Booster that meets the evolved capabilities of SLS" and "enabling competition" to "enhance SLS affordability. The purpose of the work presented in this paper is to perform an independent assessment of the elements that make up an affordable and realistic path forward for the SLS booster system, utilizing advanced design methods and technology evaluation techniques. The goal is to identify elements that will enable a more sustainable development program by exploring the trade space of heavy lift booster systems and focusing on affordability, operability, and reliability at the system and subsystem levels5. For this study, affordability is defined as lifecycle cost, which includes design, development, test, and engineering (DDT&E), production and operational costs (P&O). For this study, the system objectives include reducing DDT&E schedule by a factor of three, showing 99.9% reliability, flying up to four times per year, serving both crew and cargo missions, and evolving to a lift capability of 130 metric tons.3 After identifying gaps in the current system s capabilities, this study seeks to identify non-traditional and innovative technologies and processes that may improve performance in these areas and assess their impacts on booster system development. The DDT&E phase may be improved by incorporating incremental development testing and integrated demonstrations to mitigate risk. To further reduce DDT&E, this study will also consider how aspects of the booster system may have commonality with other users, such as the Department of Defense, commercial applications, or international partners; by sharing some of the risk and investment, the overall development cost may be reduced. Consideration is not limited to solid and liquid rocket boosters. A set of functional performance characteristics, such as engine thrust, specific impulse (Isp), mixture ratio, and throttle range are identified and their impacts on the system are evaluated. This study also identifies how such characteristics affect overall life cycle cost, including DDT&E and fixed and variable P&O.

Arockiam, Nicole↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing Crew Medical Officer Preparedness for International Space Station Missions

INTRODUCTION Astronaut crew medical officers (CMO) undergo additional, specialized training to provide medical support onboard the International Space Station (ISS). CMO training focuses on utilizing resources on-station and optimizing communication with ground-based expertise to manage both common minor conditions as well as emergency/trauma situations. As NASA moves towards future Artemis and exploration class missions, we sought CMO perspectives on past, present, and future CMO training and medical resourcing to help inform mission planners regarding medical risk mitigation considerations. We present an interview-based qualitative assessment of CMO preparedness for the International Space Station with the aim to help iterate future training flows for Low Earth Orbit, Artemis, and exploration-class missions. METHODS A semi-structured interview tool was developed to assess CMO experience and their recommendations for future mission training considerations. Participants were recruited from former or current US astronauts who were designated as CMO and subsequently flew to the International Space Station. 10 former CMOs took part in the study. Interview transcripts were deidentified and evaluated for qualitative thematic analysis by two independent coders with NVivo Software suite (Lumivero, Denver, CO), and emergent themes were compiled. RESULTS Former CMO crew expressed appropriate preparedness for current ISS medical capabilities and requirements. They identified the role of the CMO as serving as a healthcare extender to ground-based flight surgeons for ISS and other LEO missions. Individuals with prior medical experience were preferred though not felt to be necessary for LEO missions. For exploration class missions with limitations in ground communication, a physician-as-CMO and more rigorous training curricula for both the CMO and astronaut crew were desired. DISCUSSION Former NASA astronaut crew were interviewed to retrospectively assess their preparedness as ISS crew medical officers and hypothesize future medical knowledge, skill, and ability needs. Along with medical operations subject matter expert opinion and advanced probabilistic risk assessment modeling, past CMO experience can help inform future CMO training considerations and responsibilities for future Artemis and exploration class missions.

M A Labarbera↗
NASA NTRS1991

Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE): Phase A/B design study

Subcritical cryogenic fluid management (CFM) has long been recognized as an enabling technology for future space missions. Subcritical liquid storage and supply are two of the five CFM technology areas that need to be studied in the low gravity on-orbit environment. The Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE) is a LN2 cryogenic storage and supply system demonstration placed in orbit by the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) Orbiter and operated as an in-bay payload. In-space demonstration of CFM using LN2 with a few well defined areas of focus would provide the confidence level required to implement subcritical cryogen use and is the first step towards the more far reaching issue of cryogen transfer and tankage resupply. A conceptual approach for CONE was developed and an overview of the program is described including the following: (1) a description of the background and scope of the technology objectives; (2) a description of the payload design and operation; and (3) the justification for CONE relating to potential near term benefits and risk mitigation for future systems. Data and criteria is provided to correlate in-space performance with analytical and numerical modeling of CFM systems.

Bailey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Cryogenic fluid management investigations using the CONE flight experiment

The Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE) is a liquid nitrogen cryogenic storage and supply system demonstration placed in orbit by the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) Orbiter and operated as an in-bay payload whose objective is to demonstrate needed critical components and technologies. A conceptual approach has been developed by Martin Marietta under contract with the NASA Lewis Research Center and an overview of the CONE program is described which includes a definition of the background and scope of the technology objectives being investigated, a description of the payload design and operation, major features and rationale for the experiments being conducted and the justification for CONE relating to potential near-term benefits and risk mitigation for future systems.

Bailey, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Combustion devices technology team - An overview and status of STME-related activities

The Consortium for CFD applications in propulsion technology has been formed at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center. The combustion devices technology team is one of the three teams that constitute the Consortium. While generally aiming to advance combustion devices technology for rocket propulsion, the team's efforts for the last 1 and 1/2 years have been focused on issues relating to the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) nozzle. The nozzle design uses hydrogen-rich turbine exhaust to cool the wall in a film/dump scheme. This method of cooling presents challenges and associated risks for the nozzle designers and the engine/vehicle integrators. Within the nozzle itself, a key concern is the ability to effectively and efficiently film cool the wall. From the National Launch System vehicle base standpoint, there are concerns with dumping combustible gases at the nozzle exit and their potential adverse effects on the base thermal environment. The Combustion Team has developed and is implementing plans to use validated CFD tools to aid in risk mitigation for both areas.

Tucker, P. K.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Risk management for the Space Exploration Initiative

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.

Buchbinder, Ben↗
NASA NTRS1991

The CONE program - An overview

The Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE) is a liquid nitrogen cryogenic storage and supply system demonstration placed in orbit by the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) Orbiter and operated as an in-bay payload whose objective is to demonstrate needed critical components and technologies. A conceptual approach has been developed and an overview of the CONE program is described which includes the following: (1) a definition of the background and scope of the technology objectives being investigated, (2) a description of the payload design and operation, major features and rationale for the experiments being conducted, and (3) the justification for CONE relating to potential near-term benefits and risk mitigation for future systems.

Bailey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Propellant injection systems and processes

The previous 'Art of Injector Design' is maturing and merging with the more systematic 'Science of Combustion Device Analysis.' This technology can be based upon observation, correlation, experimentation and ultimately analytical modeling based upon basic engineering principles. This methodology is more systematic and far superior to the historical injector design process of 'Trial and Error' or blindly 'Copying Past Successes.' The benefit of such an approach is to be able to rank candidate design concepts for relative probability of success or technical risk in all the important combustion device design requirements and combustion process development risk categories before committing to an engine development program. Even if a single analytical design concept cannot be developed to predict satisfying all requirements simultaneously, a series of risk mitigation key enabling technologies can be identified for early resolution. Lower cost subscale or laboratory experimentation to demonstrate proof of principle, critical instrumentation requirements, and design discriminating test plans can be developed based on the physical insight provided by these analyses.

Ito, Jackson I.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Separation dynamics of the COMET FreeFlyer and an upper stage STAR-48V motor

In this report, the orbital separation between a STAR-48V upperstage motor and the COMET FreeFlyer is investigated. The time from nominal STAR-48 engine burnout is to be determined such that the STAR-48 will not collide with the FreeFlyer once the separation process has been initiated. To analyze this separation, the forces acting upon both the FreeFlyer and the STAR-48 are described in a body fixed coordinate system. These coordinates are then transformed into an Euler coordinate system and then further transformed into a relative inertial coordinate system. From this analysis and some basic assumptions about the Star-48/FreeFlyer vehicle, it can be concluded that the STAR-48 will not collide with the Free Flyer if the separation occurs at 120 seconds after nominal burnout of the STAR-48. In fact, the separation delay could be a shorter period of time, but it is recommended that this separation delay be as long as possible for risk mitigation. This delay is currently designed to be 120 seconds and the analysis presented in this report shows that this time is acceptable.

Fuller, Kevin M.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Mir environmental effects payload handrail clamp/pointing device

The Mir Environmental Effects Payload (MEEP) consists of four International Space Station Alpha (ISSA) Risk mitigation experiments to be transported and deployed in a common carrier. This carrier is to be transported to the Mir Space Station aboard the Space Shuttle and deployed during a US Extravehicular Activity (EVA) on the handrails of the Mir Docking Module (DM). This paper describes the design of the handrail clamp/ pointing device used by the astronauts to attach the carrier to the station.

Hughes, Stephen J.↗
NASA NTRS1996

STS-74/Mir photogrammetric appendage structural dynamics experiment

The Photogrammetric Appendage Structural Dynamics Experiment (PASDE) is an International Space Station (ISS) Phase-1 risk mitigation experiment. Phase-1 experiments are performed during docking missions of the U.S. Space Shuttle to the Russian Space Station Mir. The purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate the use of photogrammetric techniques for determination of structural dynamic mode parameters of solar arrays and other spacecraft appendages. Photogrammetric techniques are a low cost alternative to appendage mounted accelerometers for the ISS program. The objective of the first flight of PASDE, on STS-74 in November 1995, was to obtain video images of Mir Kvant-2 solar array response to various structural dynamic excitation events. More than 113 minutes of high quality structural response video data was collected during the mission. The PASDE experiment hardware consisted of three instruments each containing two video cameras, two video tape recorders, a modified video signal time inserter, and associated avionics boxes. The instruments were designed, fabricated, and tested at the NASA Langley Research Center in eight months. The flight hardware was integrated into standard Hitchhiker canisters at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and then installed into the Space Shuttle cargo bay in locations selected to achieve good video coverage and photogrammetric geometry.

Welch, Sharon S.↗
NASA NTRS1996

STS-76 Space Shuttle Mission Report

The STS-76 Space Shuttle Program Mission Report summarizes the Payload activities as well as the Orbiter, External Tank (ET), Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM), and the Space Shuttle main engine (SSME) systems performance during the seventy-sixth flight of the Space Shuttle Program, the fifty-first flight since the return-to-flight, and the sixteenth flight of the Orbiter Atlantis (OV-104). In addition to the Orbiter, the flight vehicle consisted of an ET that was designated ET-77; three SSME's that were designated as serial numbers 2035, 2109, and 2019 in positions 1, 2, and 3, respectively; and two SRB's that were designated BI-079. The RSRM's, designated RSRM-46, were installed in each SRB and the individual RSRM's were designated as 360TO46A for the left SRB, and 360TO46B for the right SRB. The primary objectives of this flight were to rendezvous and dock with the Mir Space Station and transfer one U.S. Astronaut to the Mir. A single Spacehab module carried science equipment and hardware, Risk Mitigation Experiments (RME's), and Russian Logistics in support of the Phase 1 Program requirements. In addition, the European Space Agency (ESA) Biorack operations were performed. Appendix A lists the sources of data, both formal and informal, that were used to prepare this report. Appendix B provides the definition of acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the report. All times during the flight are given in Greenwich mean time (GMT) and mission elapsed time (MET).

Fricke, Robert W., Jr.↗