Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “spacecraft”

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.

274 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2026

Does the International Space Station Leak DNA? Preliminary Results from the ISS External Microorganisms Payload

Existing crewed spacecraft like the ISS (International Space Station) leak by design. The ISS routinely releases gas to maintain life support systems and when astronauts exit the station to perform space walks. The chemical component of this leakage is well characterized, but the biological components are not. The ISS is not subject to planetary protection requirements, but planned missions to Mars will use similar systems and will be subject to planetary protection requirements. If detectable microorganisms are escaping through vents and or airlocks we may need to redesign our crewed habitats to minimize this type of contamination. To test the hypothesis that microorganisms from inside ISS are detectable on exterior surfaces an astronaut used the ISS External Microorganisms sampling kit (Rucker et al. 2018) to sample exterior surfaces of the ISS during an EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity) in January of 2025. These samples were returned to Earth for DNA extraction and sequencing. We successfully, extracted and sequenced bacterial, fungal and viral DNA from these samples that was not present in the negative controls. These results should help NASA refine the planetary protection requirements for crewed missions. Methods: The samples were collected using sterile, DNA free, buccal swabs (23 mm. diameter) housed in custom canisters. Each canister uses a 0.2 μm Teflon filter to maintain sterility as the caddy, holding 8 swabs moves in and out of vacuum. The astronaut sampled the: 1) airlock vestibule, 2) airlock thermal cover, 3) a gap in the micrometeorite shielding near the airlock, 4) a handrail near the airlock, 5) the Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly vent, and 6) the Vacuum Exhaust System vent. The seventh swab was exposed to vacuum during the EVA without touching it to a surface. The eighth swab, a negative control, was not opened until the caddy returned to Earth. DNA was extracted from the swabs using a QIamp UCP Pathogen kit and prepared for sequencing on an Aviti (Element Biosciences) sequencer (Arslan et al. 2024). The resulting sequences were analyzed using the EDGE Bioinformatics platform (Li et al. 2017). The sequences were analyzed individually using tools like BLAST, GOTTCHA2, Kraken2, and PanGIA. The data were also assembled into metagenome assembled genomes) using tools like CONCOCT, MaxBin2 and MetaBAT2. Results: We successfully extracted and sequenced bacterial, archaeal, fungal and viral DNA from all seven samples. The handrail swab had the lowest number of reads (768,651) and the airlock thermal cover had the highest number of reads (8,819,230). These samples contain DNA from human associated bacteria (e.g. Crynebacterium riegelii ), fungi (.e.g. Penicillium rubens ), and viruses (e.g Alphapapillomavirus ). Conclusion: Preliminary interpretation suggest that the airlock and the space suits themselves are the largest sources of contaminant DNA. Most if not all of the DNA is from organisms known to be present inside the ISS. Vents attached to life support systems may be a lesser source of biological contamination. Further analysis should help NASA address planetary protection knowledge gaps for crewed missions.

Aaron B Regberg↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advances in Design Capabilities for Planetary Missions from the NASA Entry Systems Modeling and Instrumentation Portfolio

The Entry Systems Modeling project (ESM) is supported by both the NASA Space Technology and the Science Mission Directorates and focuses on developing simulation tools and validated models for characterizing the performance of entry systems tailored to planetary destinations across the Solar System. ESM is organized into six technical capability areas that together address all relevant factors related to spacecraft entry, as well as some aspects of descent: Thermal Protection System (TPS) Materials; Aerothermodynamics; Entry & Descent Vehicle Dynamics; Guidance, Navigation, and Control; Vehicle Systems Analysis; and Advanced Tools and Numerical Methods. Development within the capability areas is undertaken explicitly with a focus on transition and infusion to science missions, human exploration missions, and commercial space activities. The present talk details developments that specifically impact science missions, including simulation tool capabilities that aid in mission design and model development to understand entry system performance at a given destination. Examples of the successful infusion and transition of such project outcomes to science missions also are provided. Several simulation tool development efforts within ESM have resulted in new design capabilities for missions. One such outcome is improved toolsets for mission trajectory and concept of operations design. Specifically, an initiative to couple a leading tool for entry, ascent/descent, and orbital trajectory optimization (Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II or POST2) to those used within the Agency for interplanetary trajectory optimization (Copernicus and Monte) has made substantial progress, with the outcomes to date promising to allow efficient trajectory optimization across mission phases. Additionally, toolchains for the evaluation of vehicle performance during entry and descent have been developed that allow assessment of multi-dimensional aeroheating on detailed vehicle geometries, characterization of deployment and inflation of parachutes, and assessment of vehicle dynamic stability during descent. These capabilities are achieved by coupling diverse sets of physics together – material response, computational fluid dynamics, radiation, and vehicle dynamics – to suitably describe complex entry and descent phenomena. Several model development and validation efforts for specific destinations and entry regimes also are underway within the ESM project. For instance, new experimental capabilities to validate radiation models at low densities/high altitudes recently have been established with project support, specifically the Low-Density Shock Tube (LDST) at the NASA Ames Research Center Electric Arc Shock Tube (EAST) facility. The LDST is being leveraged to develop improved models of shock layer kinetics and radiation in Titan atmospheres, while future studies will be conducted in the LDST and the existing high velocity shock tube to provide validation data for radiation models of Venus, Ice Giants, and Mars atmospheres. Models describing the aerothermal and thermo-structural performance of Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials has been another focus, with multiscale modeling activities on-going for the two leading TPS materials applicable to a range of entry conditions and science missions: the Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) and woven materials like 3D Mid-Density Carbon Phenolic (3MDCP). A continual effort is made to infuse and transition outcomes from ESM simulation tool and model development activities into relevant science missions. Significant progress has been made on this front, with missions such as Dragonfly, DAVINCI, and Mars Missions benefitting from project outcomes. The groundwork also is being laid to provide insights into forward looking missions to Gas/Ice Giants as well as for potential sample returns.

Justin Haskins↗
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 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↗