Results for “Technology gaps” — Page 17

NASA NTRS1974

The challenges of technology transfer

Observations of challenges of technology transfer are presented with emphasis placed on the position of industry seeking technology through the media of technology searches. Factors considered are: (1) not-invented-here syndrome; (2) penetration of technological literature; (3) gap between origin and industry use; (4) large aerospace manufacturer vs. the small manufacturer; (5) link between the technology disseminator and the potential user; (6) feasibility of substitutions in terms of production costs; and (7) role of patents. It is shown that industry, government agencies, and others having technology to disseminate or use, must mutually understand the technology tools and translate to one another's capabilities, in order to profit from this national resource.

Hazelwood, J. N.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Beyond Artemis III: EVA Gap Update & Overview

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

EVA↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA's Advanced Extra-Vehicular Activity Space Suit Pressure Garment 2018 Status and Development Plan

This paper presents both near-term and long-term NASA Advanced Extra-vehicular Activity (EVA) Pressure Garment development efforts. The near-term plan discusses the development of pressure garment components for the first design iteration of the International Space Station exploration space suit demonstration configuration, termed the xEMU Demo. The xEMU Demo effort is targeting a 2023-2025 flight demonstration timeframe. The Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) tasks focus on either the initiation or maturation of component design, depending on the state of development of the components, and the assembly of a suit configuration, termed Z-2.5, that will be used to evaluate changes to the upper torso geometry in a Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) test series. The geometry changes, which are being driven by the need to reduce the front-to-back dimension of the advanced extravehicular mobility unit, diverge from a proven shape, such as that of the Mark III Space Suit Technology Demonstrator. The 2018 efforts culminate in the Z-2.5 NBL test. The lessons learned from the Z-2.5 NBL test will inform the xEMU Demo design as the effort moves toward design verification testing and preliminary and critical design reviews. The long-term development plan looks to surface exploration and operations. Technology and knowledge gaps exist between the xEMU Demo configuration; a lunar surface capability, xEMU; and Mars surface suit, mEMU. The development plan takes into account both the priority and the anticipated development duration for each particular technology. The long-term development plan will be updated as risks are mitigated and gaps are closed, but its overarching structure will remain intact.

space suit↗

NASA NTRS2010

NASA Applied Sciences' DEVELOP National Program: Training the Next Generation of Remote Sensing Scientists

Since its inception over a decade ago, the DEVELOP National Program has provided students with experience in utilizing and integrating satellite remote sensing data into real world-applications. In 1998, DEVELOP began with three students and has evolved into a nationwide internship program with over 200 students participating each year. DEVELOP is a NASA Applied Sciences training and development program extending NASA Earth science research and technology to society. Part of the NASA Science Mission Directorate s Earth Science Division, the Applied Sciences Program focuses on bridging the gap between NASA technology and the public by conducting projects that innovatively use NASA Earth science resources to research environmental issues. Project outcomes focus on assisting communities to better understand environmental change over time. This is accomplished through research with global, national, and regional partners to identify the widest array of practical uses of NASA data. DEVELOP students conduct research in areas that examine how NASA science can better serve society. Projects focus on practical applications of NASA s Earth science research results. Each project is designed to address at least one of the Applied Sciences focus areas, use NASA s Earth observation sources and meet partners needs. DEVELOP research teams partner with end-users and organizations who use project results for policy analysis and decision support, thereby extending the benefits of NASA science and technology to the public.

Childs, Lauren↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2019

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status and Development Priorities 2019

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA's Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team's efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Unit (xEMU) project's International Space Station Demonstration Suit (xEMU Demo) project continues to be the team's primary customer and effort. In 2018 the team was engaged in addressing hardware design changes identified in the Z-2 pressure garment prototype Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) test results. These changes will be discussed. Additionally components whose first iterations were produced in 2018 will be discussed. A full pressure garment prototype, termed Z-2.5, was assembled that is composed of updated and first prototype iteration hardware. Z-2.5 NBL testing, performed from October 2018 through April 2019 will inform final design iterations in preparation for the xEMU Demo preliminary design review planned to occur in the third quarter of government fiscal year 2019. A primary objective of the Z-2.5 NBL testing is to validate changes made to the hard upper torso geometry, which depart from the planetary walking suit upper torso geometry that has been used over the last 30 years. The team continues to work technology development, with GFY2018 work being used to supplement and feed the gaps left by the scope defined for the xEMU Demo. Specifically, a Phase IIx Small Business Innovative Research Grant to mature durable bearings that are compatible with a dust environment and a grant funded by the Science Technology Mission Directorate, Lightweight and Robust Exploration Space Suit (LARESS) project, to mature planetary impact requirements and hardware will be described. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team's technology investment priorities and needs.

Ross, Amy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

DOE OSTI2025

Overcoming Challenges to Nuclear-Maritime Applications

This report is the fifth deliverable in a series of reports set forth by the Department of Energy (DOE), led by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), for the research award titled “Accelerating Commercial Maritime Demonstration Projects for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies.” The report highlights guidance to bridge the gaps between innovative nuclear technologies and their practical implementation in maritime environments. The previous reports discussed specific technical, economic and regulatory challenges that may be expected when developing and establishing advanced nuclear technologies for commercial maritime applications. This report supports the mission of the U.S. National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) to demonstrate projects with industry and acts as a resource for the various stakeholders associated with the development of novel applications for advanced reactors. The previous reports discuss the interest in nuclear technology applications for decarbonized energy and identify the potential demands in nuclear energy supply and price. The work in these reports supports the recently issued nuclear Executive Orders (EOs). Specifically, EO 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security”, and EO 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” by ensuring the rapid development, deployment, and use of advanced nuclear technologies; and increasing the deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies, such as Generation III+ and IV reactors, modular reactors, and microreactors to support America leading the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS2013

High Speed Mobility Through On-Demand Aviation

Game changing advances come about by the introduction of new technologies at a time when societal needs create the opportunity for new market solutions. A unique opportunity exists for NASA to bring about such a mobility revolution in General Aviation, extendable to other aviation markets, to maintain leadership in aviation by the United States. This report outlines the research carried out so far under NASA's leadership towards developing a new mobility choice, called Zip Aviation1,2,3. The feasibility, technology and system gaps that need to be addressed, and pathways for successful implementation have been investigated to guide future investment. The past decade indicates exciting trends in transportation technologies, which are quickly evolving. Automobiles are embracing automation to ease driver tasks as well as to completely control the vehicle with added safety (Figure 1). Electric propulsion is providing zero tail-pipe emission vehicles with dramatically lower energy and maintenance costs. These technologies have not yet been applied to aviation, yet offer compelling potential benefits across all aviation markets, and in particular to General Aviation (GA) as an early adopter market. The benefits of such an adoption are applicable in the following areas: 􀁸 Safety: The GA market experiences accident rates that are substantially higher than automobiles or commercial airlines, with 7.5 fatal accidents per 100 million vehicle miles compared to 1.3 for automobiles and.068 for airlines. Approximately 80% of these accidents are caused by some form of pilot error, with another 13% caused by single point propulsion system failure. 􀁸 Emissions: Environmental constraints are pushing for the elimination of 100Low Lead (LL) fuel used in most GA aircraft, with aviation fuel the #1 source of lead emissions into the environment. Aircraft also have no emission control systems (i.e. no catalytic converters etc.), so they are gross hydrocarbon polluters compared to automobiles. 􀁸 Community Noise: Hub and smaller GA airports are facing increasing noise restrictions, and while commercial airliners have dramatically decreased their community noise footprint over the past 30 years, GA aircraft noise has essentially remained same, and moreover, is located in closer proximity to neighborhoods and businesses. 􀁸 Operating Costs: GA operating costs have risen dramatically due to average fuel costs of over $6 per gallon, which has constrained the market over the past decade and resulted in more than 50% lower sales and 35% less yearly operations. Infusion of autonomy and electric propulsion technologies can accomplish not only a transformation of the GA market, but also provide a technology enablement bridge for both larger aircraft and the emerging civil Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) markets. The NASA Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) project successfully used a similar approach to enable the introduction of primary composite structures and flat panel displays in the 1990s, establishing both the technology and certification standardization to permit quick adoption through partnerships with industry, academia, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Regional and airliner markets are experiencing constant pressure to achieve decreasing levels of community emissions and noise, while lowering operating costs and improving safety. But to what degree can these new technology frontiers impact aircraft safety, the environment, operations, cost, and performance? Are the benefits transformational enough to fundamentally alter aircraft competiveness and productivity to permit much greater aviation use for high speed and On-Demand Mobility (ODM)? These questions were asked in a Zip aviation system study named after the Zip Car, an emerging car-sharing business model. Zip Aviation investigates the potential to enable new emergent markets for aviation that offer "more flexibility than the existing transportation solutions." These studies indicate that autonomy and electric propulsion technology infusions offer a unique opportunity to provide breakthrough capabilities for new high speed, on-demand travel alternatives that can leapfrog the need for future expensive ground-based infrastructure investment. At the same time, such investments offer a method of laying the foundation for these technologies to be incubated for commercial aviation at lower cost, and with lower initial certification thresholds due to the relatively poor capabilities of GA aircraft to permit early adoption and private market capitalization by rapid technology accelerations, as depicted in Figure 2.

Moore, Mark D.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2001

Challenging Technology, and Technology Infusion into 21st Century

In preparing for the space exploration challenges of the next century, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Center for Integrated Space Micro-Systems (CISM) is chartered to develop advanced spacecraft systems that can be adapted for a large spectrum of future space missions. Enabling this task are revolutions in the miniaturization of electrical, mechanical, and computational functions. On the other hand, these revolutionary technologies usually have much lower readiness levels than those required by flight projects. The mission of the Advanced Micro Spacecraft (AMS) task in CISM is to bridge the readiness gap between advanced technologies and flight projects. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Chau, S. N.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Deep Space Optical Communications (DSOC)

NASA’s future deep space science and exploration missions will require enhanced communications and navigation services. Laser communications offers expanded bandwidth and the potential for satisfying this need, with comparable mass and power as state of the art telecommunication systems. Consequently, NASA is planning a Deep Space Optical Communications (DSOC) technology demonstration, to retire the risk for future enhanced optical communication services. NASA’s upcoming Psyche Mission scheduled to launch in August of 2022 plans to host a DSOC flight laser transceiver (FLT) for demonstrating optical links from deep-space to earth. Existing ground assets retrofitted with laser transmitters and photon-counting receivers will be used for the technology demonstration. Advancing optical technology from near-Earth ranges to deep space (> 0.01 astronomical units or AU) involves orders of magnitude increased link difficulty (defined as data-rate squared distance). The plan to bridge the difficulty gap implements new technologies developed over the past two decades. These technologies emphasize high photon efficiency (HPE) with the use of high-peak-to-average power laser transmitters in space, and single photon counting sensitivity detectors, that together support signaling schemes for achieving approximately 23 information bits per detected photon. Implementing HPE schemes relies on accurate and stable pointing of narrow laser beams from space platforms using active control. Key developments needed for future technology infusion, following a successful DSOC technology demonstration, include, cost-effective ground infrastructure, long term reliability of space lasers and detection systems, and solutions for high precision laser ranging. The current status of the DSOC Project and plans for future development will be discussed in this paper.

Biswas, Abhijit↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cyber-Physical Reformer Development at NETL

Integrated energy systems are considered one of promising technologies to provide efficient, reliable and resilient power generation. The U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory is building an automated reformer-solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine integrated energy system using a cyber-physical systems (CPS) approach, which exploits the advantage of both numerical model and physical system, as well as gapping the inaccessible technologies. Both the fuel reformer and the fuel cell stack are designed to be CPS components, of which the hardware representations are physically integrated with the gas turbine. A compact design is used with the consideration of future commercialization by placing all components inside of a pressure chamber, which is pressurized by the compressor discharge. (Presented virtually at the MILLENNIUM CLEAN and SUSTAINABLE POWER Workshop 2025)

cyber-physical↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Robotic Manipulation Testbeds with HPSC

Interoperability and scalability of robotic manipulators will be key to develop and sustain a lunar surface and cislunar ecosystem. From in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) to logistics, maintenance, and science operations, robotic manipulation is a critical NASA capability need and the demand for high-performance spaceflight computing will only rise as robotic tasks become more autonomous. With increased complexity, testbeds for research, feasibility studies, and technology demonstrations will be essential. The Dexterous Robotics Team at NASA Johnson Space Center has established multiple robotic manipulation testbeds taking a supervised autonomous remote operations approach and plans to infuse High-Performance Spaceflight Computing (HPSC) to emulate the flight environment and close the gap between space technology development and flight operations.

Alex Sowell↗

NASA NTRS1986

The changing face of international space cooperation - One view of NASA

It is pointed out that from its earliest years NASA has incorporated international participation into many of its programs. Guidelines were developed with the objective to maximize the benefits of international cooperation. The cooperative guidelines were accepted because they reflected conditions which applied during much or all of the 1960-1980 period. There existed a clear technology and experience gap between the U.S. and even its largest cooperative partners. Thus, the U.S. enjoyed a virtual Free World monopoly on launching large satellites, especially those destined for geostationary or interplanetary orbits. However, on the basis of new developments, NASA faces now a modified international operating environment, in which the U.S. technological lead has been significantly reduced. The results of this situation are examined, taking into account the equalization of capabilities, the rise of commercial competition, Soviet competition, multinational patterns, and reduced cooperative opportunities.

Pedersen, K. S.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Slippery liquid infused porous surface (SLIPS) condensers for high efficiency air gap membrane distillation

Abstract To address growing water scarcity, we must improve the energy efficiency of thermal desalination technologies such as air gap membrane distillation. However, promising functional materials such as slippery liquid infused porous surfaces have not yet implemented for any desalination technology. Here, we fabricate and test slippery liquid infused porous surfaces (using Krytox 16,256 lubricant and CuO nanostructures) in an air gap membrane distillation apparatus. System-level transport models, validated by experimental data, establish a framework for improving performance through enhanced condensation surfaces. Results are obtained across a range of temperatures (50–80 °C), salinities (5–105 g/kg), and module lengths. We find that small air gap thickness and efficient droplet shedding significantly improves performance. The CuO Krytox process achieves these with a conductive-self-limiting coating, high nanostructure rugosity, strong covalent and metallic bonding, high hydrophobicity, minimal droplet pinning sites, and ultra-low contact angle hysteresis. The greatest efficiency enhancement from SLIPS is derived from the improved droplet shedding, which allows for reduced gap sizes without flooding, and is further augmented by the increased permeate flux.

Yogi, Yashwant S.↗

NASA NTRS2008

JPL Advanced Thermal Control Technology Roadmap - 2008

This slide presentation reviews the status of thermal control technology at JPL and NASA.It shows the active spacecraft that are in vairous positions in the solar syatem, and beyond the solar system and the future missions that are under development. It then describes the challenges that the past missions posed with the thermal control systems. The various solutions that were implemented duirng the decades prior to 1990 are outlined. A review of hte thermal challenges of the future misions is also included. The exploration plan for Mars is then reviewed. The thermal challenges of the Mars Rovers are then outlined. Also the challenges of systems that would be able to be used in to explore Venus, and Titan are described. The future space telescope missions will also need thermal control technological advances. Included is a review of the thermal requirements for manned missions to the Moon. Both Active and passive technologies that have been used and will be used are reviewed. Those that are described are Mechanically Pumped Fluid Loops (MPFL), Loop Heat Pipes, an M3 Passive Cooler, Heat Siwtch for Space and Mars surface applications, phase change material (PCM) technology, a Gas Gap Actuateor using ZrNiH(x), the Planck Sorption Cooler (PCS), vapor compression -- Hybrid two phase loops, advanced pumps for two phase cooling loops, and heat pumps that are lightweight and energy efficient.

spacecraft thermal control↗