Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “core communities”

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.

297 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

CFD Multiphysics Tool

The recent bold initiatives to expand the human presence in space require innovative approaches to the design of propulsion systems whose underlying technology is not yet mature. The space propulsion community has identified a number of candidate concepts. A short list includes solar sails, high-energy-density chemical propellants, electric and electromagnetic accelerators, solar-thermal and nuclear-thermal expanders. For each of these, the underlying physics are relatively well understood. One could easily cite authoritative texts, addressing both the governing equations, and practical solution methods for, e.g. electromagnetic fields, heat transfer, radiation, thermophysics, structural dynamics, particulate kinematics, nuclear energy, power conversion, and fluid dynamics. One could also easily cite scholarly works in which complete equation sets for any one of these physical processes have been accurately solved relative to complex engineered systems. The Advanced Concepts and Analysis Office (ACAO), Space Transportation Directorate, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, has recently released the first alpha version of a set of computer utilities for performing the applicable physical analyses relative to candidate deep-space propulsion systems such as those listed above. PARSEC, Preliminary Analysis of Revolutionary in-Space Engineering Concepts, enables rapid iterative calculations using several physics tools developed in-house. A complete cycle of the entire tool set takes about twenty minutes. PARSEC is a level-zero/level-one design tool. For PARSEC s proof-of-concept, and preliminary design decision-making, assumptions that significantly simplify the governing equation sets are necessary. To proceed to level-two, one wishes to retain modeling of the underlying physics as close as practical to known applicable first principles. This report describes results of collaboration between ACAO, and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), to begin building a set of level-two design tools for PARSEC. The "CFD Multiphysics Tool" will be the propulsive element of the tool set. The name acknowledges that space propulsion performance assessment is primarily a fluid mechanics problem. At the core of the CFD Multiphysics Tool is an open-source CFD code, HYP, under development at ERAU. ERAU is renowned for its undergraduate degree program in Aerospace Engineering the largest in the nation. The strength of the program is its applications-oriented curriculum, which culminates in one of three two-course Engineering Design sequences: Aerospace Propulsion, Spacecraft, or Aircraft. This same philosophy applies to the HYP Project, albeit with fluid physics modeling commensurate with graduate research. HYP s purpose, like the Multiphysics Tool s, is to enable calculations of real (three-dimensional; geometrically complex; intended for hardware development) applications of high speed and propulsive fluid flows.

Perrell, Eric R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Soil Moisture Active Passive Mission L4_SM Data Product Assessment (Version 2 Validated Release)

During the post-launch SMAP calibration and validation (Cal/Val) phase there are two objectives for each science data product team: 1) calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithm, and 2) validate the accuracy of the science data product as specified in the science requirements and according to the Cal/Val schedule. This report provides an assessment of the SMAP Level 4 Surface and Root Zone Soil Moisture Passive (L4_SM) product specifically for the product's public Version 2 validated release scheduled for 29 April 2016. The assessment of the Version 2 L4_SM data product includes comparisons of SMAP L4_SM soil moisture estimates with in situ soil moisture observations from core validation sites and sparse networks. The assessment further includes a global evaluation of the internal diagnostics from the ensemble-based data assimilation system that is used to generate the L4_SM product. This evaluation focuses on the statistics of the observation-minus-forecast (O-F) residuals and the analysis increments. Together, the core validation site comparisons and the statistics of the assimilation diagnostics are considered primary validation methodologies for the L4_SM product. Comparisons against in situ measurements from regional-scale sparse networks are considered a secondary validation methodology because such in situ measurements are subject to up-scaling errors from the point-scale to the grid cell scale of the data product. Based on the limited set of core validation sites, the wide geographic range of the sparse network sites, and the global assessment of the assimilation diagnostics, the assessment presented here meets the criteria established by the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites for Stage 2 validation and supports the validated release of the data. An analysis of the time average surface and root zone soil moisture shows that the global pattern of arid and humid regions are captured by the L4_SM estimates. Results from the core validation site comparisons indicate that "Version 2" of the L4_SM data product meets the self-imposed L4_SM accuracy requirement, which is formulated in terms of the ubRMSE: the RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) after removal of the long-term mean difference. The overall ubRMSE of the 3-hourly L4_SM surface soil moisture at the 9 km scale is 0.035 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The corresponding ubRMSE for L4_SM root zone soil moisture is 0.024 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. Both of these metrics are comfortably below the 0.04 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The L4_SM estimates are an improvement over estimates from a model-only SMAP Nature Run version 4 (NRv4), which demonstrates the beneficial impact of the SMAP brightness temperature data. L4_SM surface soil moisture estimates are consistently more skillful than NRv4 estimates, although not by a statistically significant margin. The lack of statistical significance is not surprising given the limited data record available to date. Root zone soil moisture estimates from L4_SM and NRv4 have similar skill. Results from comparisons of the L4_SM product to in situ measurements from nearly 400 sparse network sites corroborate the core validation site results. The instantaneous soil moisture and soil temperature analysis increments are within a reasonable range and result in spatially smooth soil moisture analyses. The O-F residuals exhibit only small biases on the order of 1-3 degrees Kelvin between the (re-scaled) SMAP brightness temperature observations and the L4_SM model forecast, which indicates that the assimilation system is largely unbiased. The spatially averaged time series standard deviation of the O-F residuals is 5.9 degrees Kelvin, which reduces to 4.0 degrees Kelvin for the observation-minus-analysis (O-A) residuals, reflecting the impact of the SMAP observations on the L4_SM system. Averaged globally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals is close to unity, which would suggest that the magnitude of the modeled errors approximately reflects that of the actual errors. The assessment report also notes several limitations of the "Version 2" L4_SM data product and science algorithm calibration that will be addressed in future releases. Regionally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals deviates considerably from unity, which indicates that the L4_SM assimilation algorithm either over- or under-estimates the actual errors that are present in the system. Planned improvements include revised land model parameters, revised error parameters for the land model and the assimilated SMAP observations, and revised surface meteorological forcing data for the operational period and underlying climatological data. Moreover, a refined analysis of the impact of SMAP observations will be facilitated by the construction of additional variants of the model-only reference data. Nevertheless, the “Version 2” validated release of the L4_SM product is sufficiently mature and of adequate quality for distribution to and use by the larger science and application communities.

SMAP L4_SM↗
NASA NTRS2012

Surface Textures and Features Indicative of Endogenous Growth at the McCartys Flow Field, NM, as an Analog to Martian Volcanic Plains

Basaltic lavas typically form channels or tubes, which are recognized on the Earth and Mars. Although largely unrecognized in the planetary community, terrestrial inflated sheet flows also display morphologies that share many commonalities with lava plains on Mars. The McCartys lava flow field is among the youngest (approx.3000 yrs) basaltic flows in the continental United States. The southwest sections of the flow displays smooth, flat-topped plateaus with irregularly shaped pits and hummocky inter-plateau units that form a polygonal surface. Plateaus are typically elongate in map view, up to 20 m high and display lineations within the glassy crust. Lineated surfaces occasionally display small < 1m diameter lava coils. Lineations are generally straight and parallel each other, sometimes for over 100 meters. The boundaries between plateaus and depressions are also lineated and tilted to angles sometimes approaching vertical. Plateau-parallel cracks, sometimes containing squeeze-ups, mark the boundary between tilted crust and plateau. Some plateau depressions display level floors with hummocky surfaces, while some are bowl shaped with floors covered in broken lava slabs. The lower walls of pits sometimes display lateral, sagged lava wedges. Infrequently, pit floors display the upper portion of a tumulus from an older flow. In some places the surface crust has been disrupted forming a slabby texture. Slabs are typically on the scale of a meter or less across and no less than 7-10 cm thick. The slabs preserve the lineated textures of the undisturbed plateau crust. It appears that this style of terrain represents the emplacement of an extensive sheet that experiences inflation episodes within preferred regions where lateral spreading of the sheet is inhibited, thereby forming plateaus. Rough surfaces represent inflation-related disruption of pahoehoe lava and not a a lava. Depressions are often the result of non-inflation and can be clearly identified by lateral squeeze-outs along the pit walls that form when the rising crust exposes the still liquid core of the sheet. The plains of Tharsis and Elysium, Mars, display many analogous features

Bleacher, Jacob E.↗
NASA NTRS2017

OpenSatKit Enables Quick Startup for CubeSat Missions

The software required to develop, integrate, and operate a spacecraft is substantial regardless of whether its a large or small satellite. Even getting started can be a monumental task. To solve this problem, NASAs Core Flight System (cFS), NASA's 42 spacecraft dynamics simulator, and Ball Aerospaces COSMOS ground system have been integrated together into a kit called OpenSatKit that provides a complete and open source software solution for starting a new satellite mission. Users can have a working system with flight software, dynamics simulation, and a ground command and control system up and running within hours.Every satellite mission requires three primary categories of software to function. The first is Flight Software (FSW) which provides the onboard control of the satellites and its payload(s). NASA's cFS provides a great platform for developing this software. Second, while developing a satellite on earth, it is necessary to simulate the satellites orbit, attitude, and actuators, to ensure that the systems that control these aspects will work correctly in the real environment. NASAs 42 simulator provides these functionalities. Finally, the ground has to be able to communicate with the satellite, monitor its performance and health, and display its data. Additionally, test scripts have to be written to verify the system on the ground. Ball Aerospace's COSMOS command and control system provides this functionality. Once the OpenSatKit is up and running, the next step is to customize the platform and get it running on the end target. Starting from a fully working system makes porting the cFS from Linux to a users platform much easier. An example Raspberry Pi target is included in the kit so users can gain experience working with a low cost hardware target. All users can benefit from OpenSatKit but the greatest impact and benefits will be to SmallSat missions with constrained budgets and small software teams. This paper describes OpenSatKits system design, the steps necessary to run the system to target the Raspberry Pi, and future plans. OpenSatKit is a free fully functional spacecraft software system that we hope will greatly benefit the SmallSat community.

Software↗
NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: Game Changer for National Security Launch

NASA is designing the Ares V cargo launch vehicle to vastly expand exploration of the Moon begun in the Apollo program and enable the exploration of Mars and beyond. As the largest launcher in history, Ares V also represents a national asset offering unprecedented opportunities for new science, national security, and commercial missions of unmatched size and scope. The Ares V is the heavy-lift component of NASA's dual-launch architecture that will replace the current space shuttle fleet, complete the International Space Station, and establish a permanent human presence on the Moon as a stepping-stone to destinations beyond. During extensive independent and internal architecture and vehicle trade studies as part of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), NASA selected the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V to support future exploration. The smaller Ares I will launch the Orion crew exploration vehicle with four to six astronauts into orbit. The Ares V is designed to carry the Altair lunar lander into orbit, rendezvous with Orion, and send the mated spacecraft toward lunar orbit. The Ares V will be the largest and most powerful launch vehicle in history, providing unprecedented payload mass and volume to establish a permanent lunar outpost and explore significantly more of the lunar surface than was done during the Apollo missions. The Ares V consists of a Core Stage, two Reusable Solid Rocket Boosters (RSRBs), Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and a payload shroud. For lunar missions, the shroud would cover the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The Ares V Core Stage is 33 feet in diameter and 212 feet in length, making it the largest rocket stage ever built. It is the same diameter as the Saturn V first stage, the S-IC. However, its length is about the same as the combined length of the Saturn V first and second stages. The Core Stage uses a cluster of five Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68B rocket engines, each supplying about 700,000 pounds of thrust. Its propellants are liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The two solid rocket boosters provide about 3.5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. These 5.5-segment boosters are derived from the 4-segment boosters now used on the Space Shuttle, and are similar to those used in the Ares I first stage. The EDS is powered by one J-2X engine. The J-2X, which has roughly 294,000 pounds of thrust, also powers the Ares I Upper Stage. It is derived from the J-2 that powered the Saturn V second and third stages. The EDS performs two functions. Its initial suborbital burns will place the lunar lander into a stable Earth orbit. After the Orion crew vehicle, launched separately on an Ares I, docks with the lander/EDS stack, EDS will ignite a second time to put the combined 65-metric ton vehicle into a lunar transfer orbit. When it stands on the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center late in the next decade, the Ares V stack will be approximately 381 feet tall and have a gross liftoff mass of 8.1 million pounds. The current point-of-departure design exceeds Saturn V s mass capability by approximately 40 percent. Using the current payload shroud design, Ares V can carry 315,000 pounds to 29-degree low Earth orbit (LEO) or 77,000 pounds to a geosynchronous orbit. Another unique aspect of the Ares V is the 33-foot-diameter payload shroud, which encloses approximately 30,400 cubic feet of usable volume. A larger hypothetical shroud for encapsulating larger payloads has been studied. While Ares V makes possible larger payload masses and volumes, it may alternately make possible more cost-effective mission design if the relevant payload communities are willing to consider an alternative to the existing approach that has driven them to employ complexity to solve current launch vehicle mass and volume constraints. By using Ares V s mass and volume capabilities as margin, payload designers stand to reduce development risk and cost. Significant progress has been made on the Ares V to support a plaed fiscal 2011 authority-to-proceed (ATP) milestone. The Ares V team is actively reaching out to external organizations during this early concept phase to ensure that the Ares V vehicle can be leveraged for national security, science, and commercial development needs. This presentation will discuss Ares V vehicle configuration, the path to the current concept, accomplishments to date, and potential payload utilization opportunities.

Sumrall, Phil↗
NASA NTRS2013

Effects of the 8 psia / 32% O2 Atmosphere on the Human in the Spaceflight Environment

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. There are elements of exploration that may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but there are critical elements of exploration that will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA intensive phases of missions. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This paper provides a literature review of the human health and performance risks associated with the 8 psia/32% O2 environment. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasures protocols, effective food preparation at 8 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. As a first effort, the trade space originally considered in the EAWG was re-evaluated looking for ways to decrease the hypoxic dose by further enriching the O2% or increasing the pressure. After discussion with the NASA engineering and materials community, it was determined that the O2 could be enriched from 32% to 34% and the pressure increased from 8.0 to 8.2 psia without significant penalty. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. Once decided, the proposed internal environment, if different than current experience, should be evaluated through appropriately simulated research studies. In many cases, the human physiologic concerns can be investigated effectively through integrated multi-discipline ground-based studies. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Environmental control↗
NASA NTRS2017

Collaborative Data Publication Utilizing the Open Data Repository's (ODR) Data Publisher

Introduction: For small communities in diverse fields such as astrobiology, publishing and sharing data can be a difficult challenge. While large, homogenous fields often have repositories and existing data standards, small groups of independent researchers have few options for publishing standards and data that can be utilized within their community. In conjunction with teams at NASA Ames and the University of Arizona, the Open Data Repository's (ODR) Data Publisher has been conducting ongoing pilots to assess the needs of diverse research groups and to develop software to allow them to publish and share their data collaboratively. Objectives: The ODR's Data Publisher aims to provide an easy-to-use and implement software tool that will allow researchers to create and publish database templates and related data. The end product will facilitate both human-readable interfaces (web-based with embedded images, files, and charts) and machine-readable interfaces utilizing semantic standards. Characteristics: The Data Publisher software runs on the standard LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) stack to provide the widest server base available. The software is based on Symfony (www.symfony.com) which provides a robust framework for creating extensible, object-oriented software in PHP. The software interface consists of a template designer where individual or master database templates can be created. A master database template can be shared by many researchers to provide a common metadata standard that will set a compatibility standard for all derivative databases. Individual researchers can then extend their instance of the template with custom fields, file storage, or visualizations that may be unique to their studies. This allows groups to create compatible databases for data discovery and sharing purposes while still providing the flexibility needed to meet the needs of scientists in rapidly evolving areas of research. Research: As part of this effort, a number of ongoing pilot and test projects are currently in progress. The Astrobiology Habitable Environments Database Working Group is developing a shared database standard using the ODR's Data Publisher and has a number of example databases where astrobiology data are shared. Soon these databases will be integrated via the template-based standard. Work with this group helps determine what data researchers in these diverse fields need to share and archive. Additionally, this pilot helps determine what standards are viable for sharing these types of data from internally developed standards to existing open standards such as the Dublin Core (http://dublincore.org) and Darwin Core (http://rs.twdg.org) metadata standards. Further studies are ongoing with the University of Arizona Department of Geosciences where a number of mineralogy databases are being constructed within the ODR Data Publisher system. Conclusions: Through the ongoing pilots and discussions with individual researchers and small research teams, a definition of the tools desired by these groups is coming into focus. As the software development moves forward, the goal is to meet the publication and collaboration needs of these scientists in an unobtrusive and functional way.

easy to use and implement software tool↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Does Collection Time Bias the Ecology of Cleanroom Air Samples?

Microbial monitoring of astromaterials collections has taken on increased importance with the return of biologically sensitive samples from the asteroids Ryugu and Bennu and the initiation of the Mars Sample Return Program. Terrestrial bacteria and fungi can alter the mineralogy and organic composition of our collections causing irreversible contamination of pristine samples and increasing the risk of false positives for life detection measurements. NASA has conducted routine microbial monitoring of its existing collections since 20181. Initial monitoring focused on surface samples collected with foam swabs. Although, airborne microbiology is often decoupled from surface microbiology in the built environment2 culture-based air sampling techniques like impactors were not compliant with existing contamination control requirements. Bringing organic rich media, gelatin or liquids into curation cleanrooms presents an unacceptable risk to pristine samples. In 2022 NASA purchased a materials complaint air sampler and began collecting air samples from the cleanrooms in addition to surface samples3. The new instrument uses an electret filter to collect samples that are suitable for cultivating organisms or for direct DNA sequencing. Preliminary DNA sequencing results appeared to indicate that longer sampling times biased the microbial community in favor of hearty, spore-forming bacteria3. We present the results of a study comparing overnight sampling (17 hours) to short (1 hour) sampling of unoccupied curation cleanrooms. The results will help us optimize our monitoring protocols and develop a more detailed inventory of the ecology of astromaterials curation cleanrooms. Methods: We analyzed 72 paired air samples from six different cleanrooms including the meteorite processing lab (ISO 7 equivalent, 16 samples), the lunar lab (ISO 6 equivalent, 10 samples), the stardust lab (ISO 5 equivalent 14 samples), the OSIRIS-REx lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 12 samples), the Hayabusa2 lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 14 samples), and the Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent, 6 samples). All the samples were collected with an InnovaPrep Bobcat air sampler operating at a sampling rate of 200 L/min. The sampler operates for 5 minutes out of every 20 minute period. Half of the samples were collected by filtering 3,000L (15 min. of active sampling) of air across an electret filter for one hour. The rest of the samples were collected by filtering approximately 51,000 L air across the filter overnight (~17 hours, 255 min. of active sampling). Cells were eluted from the filter using 6-7 ml of pressurized 0.15% tween 20 in PBS (phosphate buffered saline). This liquid was used to cultivate bacteria according to previously published methods1,4,5 and for DNA extraction and next generation sequencing. DNA was extracted with a Qiagen MagAttract PowerMicrobiome kit6. To identify bacteria and archaea, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using Earth Microbiome primers for the V4 region 7. The amplified DNA was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq using a V3 reagent kit. The resulting sequences were processed using DADA2 and QIIME2 as implemented on the EDGE bioinformatics platform8–10. Results: Only two of the 72 samples had no amplifiable DNA. Amplified DNA concentrations ranged from 2.67 – 0.272 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the 1 hour samples was 0.770 ± 0.368 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the overnight samples was 0.877 ± 0.434 ng/µl. On average the overnight samples had slightly more sequences (58,960 vs. 59,456) and ASV’s (amplicon sequence variants) (60 vs 64.5) than the one hour samples, but these differences are not statistically significant. The most abundant ASV in every sample mapped to the genus Cupravidus. ASV’s mapping to the genuses Bacillus, Schlegelella, Thermus, and Staphylococcus were also common. Discussion and Future Work: Alpha diversity statistics like Shannon Entropy and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity are used to describe the diversity of organisms in a single sample. If a longer sampling time was biasing the data, we would expect to see a change in these diversity statistics vs. sample time. However, we did not observe this in our data. The median Shannon entropy was slightly higher for the overnight samples (3.773 vs 3.611) as was the Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (4.042 vs 3.596), but both values were within a standard deviation of each other for the two sampling times (Fig. 1). It is unlikely, that the longer sampling time is introducing bias into our data. We do observe a significant decrease in diversity when comparing the air samples by lab. The Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent) has a lower median number of ASV’s (45.5) than the other labs (62). Median values for Shannon Entropy (3.717 vs. 3.430) and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (3.796 vs. 3.548) are also lower for Genesis, but those values are with one standard deviation of each other for the different sampling times. This is consistent with previous culture-based results suggesting that the environment in cleanrooms tends to select for a core group of organisms capable of surviving under dry, low nutrient, conditions. The presence of the ASV’s mapping to Cupravidus and Thermus in our sequencing blanks and controls suggests that several of the most common organisms in our samples represent contaminants from the reagents used to perform the DNA extractions and sequencing. Further work is needed to identify these contaminants, remove them from our data and recalculate the diversity statistics. This is a systematic error. Therefore, we do not expect removing the sequencing contaminants to change our conclusions. Longer air sample collection times appear to result in slightly higher diversity and do not bias the results towards “hardy” bacteria like spore-formers. Based on these preliminary results we conclude that sampling at least 3,000 liters of air is sufficient to capture the microbial diversity of cleanrooms, and that air samples can also be collected overnight without negatively impacting diversity. These results allow us to be flexible when designing microbial monitoring plans so that they do not interfere with routine lab activity. References: 1. Regberg, A. B. et al. 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2018). 2. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USP General Chapter <1116> (2013). 3. Regberg, A. B., et al. 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2023). 4. Regberg, A. B. et al. 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference ( 2022). 5. Davis, R. E.,et al. 50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2019). 6. Qiagen. MagAttract® PowerMicrobiome® DNA/RNA EP Kit Handbook. (2018). 7. Walters, W. et al. mSystems 1, (2015). 8. Callahan, B. J. et al. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016). 9. Hall, M. & Beiko, R. G. Microbiome Analysis: Methods and Protocols113–129 (Springer, 2018). 10. Philipson, C. et al. Bio-Protoc. 7, e2622 (2017).

A. B. Regberg↗