Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Early flight risk”

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.

312 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Preparing for Mars: The Evolvable Mars Campaign 'Proving Ground' Approach

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) prepares to extend human presence beyond Low Earth Orbit, we are in the early stages of planning missions within the framework of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. Initial missions would be conducted in near-Earth cis-lunar space and would eventually culminate in extended duration crewed missions on the surface of Mars. To enable such exploration missions, critical technologies and capabilities must be identified, developed, and tested. NASA has followed a principled approach to identify critical capabilities and a "Proving Ground" approach is emerging to address testing needs. The Proving Ground is a period subsequent to current International Space Station activities wherein exploration-enabling capabilities and technologies are developed and the foundation is laid for sustained human presence in space. The Proving Ground domain essentially includes missions beyond Low Earth Orbit that will provide increasing mission capability while reducing technical risks. Proving Ground missions also provide valuable experience with deep space operations and support the transition from "Earth-dependence" to "Earth-independence" required for sustainable space exploration. A Technology Development Assessment Team identified a suite of critical technologies needed to support the cadence of exploration missions. Discussions among mission planners, vehicle developers, subject-matter-experts, and technologists were used to identify a minimum but sufficient set of required technologies and capabilities. Within System Maturation Teams, known challenges were identified and expressed as specific performance gaps in critical capabilities, which were then refined and activities required to close these critical gaps were identified. Analysis was performed to identify test and demonstration opportunities for critical technical capabilities across the Proving Ground spectrum of missions. This suite of critical capabilities is expected to provide the foundation required to enable a variety of possible destinations and missions consistent with the Evolvable Mars Campaign.. The International Space Station will be used to the greatest extent possible for exploration capability and technology development. Beyond this, NASA is evaluating a number of options for Proving Ground missions. An "Asteroid Redirect Mission" will demonstrate needed capabilities (e.g., Solar Electric Propulsion) and transportation systems for the crew (i.e., Space Launch System and Orion) and for cargo (i.e., Asteroid Redirect Vehicle). The Mars 2020 mission and follow-on robotic precursor missions will gather Mars surface environment information and will mature technologies. NASA is considering emplacing a small pressurized module in cis-lunar space to support crewed operations of increasing duration and to serve as a platform for critical exploration capabilities testing (e.g., radiation mitigation; extended duration deep space habitation). In addition, "opportunistic mission operations" could demonstrate capabilities not on the Mars critical path that may, nonetheless, enhance exploration operations (e.g., teleoperations, crew assisted Mars sample return). The Proving Ground may also include "pathfinder" missions to test and demonstrate specific capabilities at Mars (e.g., entry, descent, and landing). This paper describes the (1) process used to conduct an architecture-driven technology development assessment, (2) exploration mission critical and supporting capabilities, and (3) approach for addressing test and demonstration opportunities encompassing the spectrum of flight elements and destinations consistent with the Evolvable Mars Campaign.

Bobskill, Marianne R.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Can we use antipredator behavior theory to predict wildlife responses to high-speed vehicles?

Animals seem to rely on antipredator behavior to avoid vehicle collisions. There is an extensive body of antipredator behavior theory that have been used to predict the distance/time animals should escape from predators. These models have also been used to guide empirical research on escape behavior from vehicles. However, little is known as to whether antipredator behavior models are appropriate to apply to an approaching high-speed vehicle scenario. We addressed this gap by (a) providing an overview of the main hypotheses and predictions of different antipredator behavior models via a literature review, (b) exploring whether these models can generate quantitative predictions on escape distance when parameterized with empirical data from the literature, and (c) evaluating their sensitivity to vehicle approach speed using a simulation approach wherein we assessed model performance based on changes in effect size with variations in the slope of the flight initiation distance (FID) vs. approach speed relationship. The slope of the FID vs. approach speed relationship was then related back to three different behavioral rules animals may rely on to avoid approaching threats: the spatial, temporal, or delayed margin of safety. We used literature on birds for goals (b) and (c). Our review considered the following eight models: the economic escape model, Blumstein’s economic escape model, the optimal escape model, the perceptual limit hypothesis, the visual cue model, the flush early and avoid the rush (FEAR) hypothesis, the looming stimulus hypothesis, and the Bayesian model of escape behavior. We were able to generate quantitative predictions about escape distance with the last five models. However, we were only able to assess sensitivity to vehicle approach speed for the last three models. The FEAR hypothesis is most sensitive to high-speed vehicles when the species follows the spatial (FID remains constant as speed increases) and the temporal margin of safety (FID increases with an increase in speed) rules of escape. The looming stimulus effect hypothesis reached small to intermediate levels of sensitivity to high-speed vehicles when a species follows the delayed margin of safety (FID decreases with an increase in speed). The Bayesian optimal escape model reached intermediate levels of sensitivity to approach speed across all escape rules (spatial, temporal, delayed margins of safety) but only for larger (> 1 kg) species, but was not sensitive to speed for smaller species. Overall, no single antipredator behavior model could characterize all different types of escape responses relative to vehicle approach speed but some models showed some levels of sensitivity for certain rules of escape behavior. We derive some applied applications of our findings by suggesting the estimation of critical vehicle approach speeds for managing populations that are especially susceptible to road mortality. Overall, we recommend that new escape behavior models specifically tailored to high-speeds vehicles should be developed to better predict quantitatively the responses of animals to an increase in the frequency of cars, airplanes, drones, etc. they will face in the next decade.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

Cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for Human Space Exploration

In order to conduct sustained human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), spacecraft systems are designed to operate in a series of missions of increasing complexity. Regardless of the destination, Moon, Mars, asteroids or beyond, there is a substantial set of common objectives that must be met. Many orbit characterization studies have endeavored to evaluate the potential locations in cislunar space that are favorable for meeting common human exploration objectives in a stepwise approach. Multiple studies, by both NASA and other international space agencies, have indicated that Earth-­‐moon libration point orbits are attractive candidates for staging operations in the proving ground and beyond. In particular, the Near Rectilinear Orbit (NRO) has been demonstrated to meet multi-­‐mission and multi-­‐destination architectural constraints. However, a human mission to a selected NRO presents a variety of new challenges for mission planning. While a growing number of robotic missions have completed successful operations to various specific libration point orbits, human missions have never been conducted to orbits of this class. Human missions have unique challenges that differ significantly from robotic missions, including a lower tolerance for mission risk and additional operational constraints that are associated only with human spacecraft. In addition, neither robotic nor human missions have been operated in the NRO regime specifically, and NROs exhibit dynamical characteristics that can differ significantly as compared to other halo orbits. Finally, multi-­‐body orbits, such as libration point orbits, are identified to exist in a simplified orbit model known as the Circular Restricted Three Body Problem (CRTBP) and must then be re-­‐solved in the full ephemeris model. As a result, the behavior of multi-­‐body orbits cannot be effectively characterized within the classical two-­‐body orbit dynamics framework more familiar to the human spaceflight community. In fact, a given NRO is not identified by a set of Keplerian orbit parameters, and a valid epoch specific state vector must be first obtained from a multi-body dynamical model. In this paper, the significant performance and operational challenges of conducting human missions to the NRO are evaluated. First, a systematic process for generating full ephemeris based ballistic NROs of various families is outlined to demonstrate the relative ease in which a multi-­‐revolution orbit can be found for any epoch and for various orbit geometries. In the Earth-­‐Moon system, NROs, which are halo orbits with close passage over a lunar pole, can exist with respect to libration point 1 (L1) or libration point 2 (L2) and are either from a North or South family orbit class with respect to the ecliptic. Second, the ability to maintain the orbit over the lifetime of a habitat mission by applying a reliable station-keeping strategy is investigated. The NRO, while similar to the quasi-­‐halo orbits that the Artemis mission flew, requires an updated station keeping strategy. This is due to several dynamical differences such as the increased relative stability of the NRO compared to other halo orbits and the close passage over the lunar surface as shown in Figure 1. Multiple station-keeping strategies are being investigated to ensure a human spacecraft remains on a predictable path. As the NRO is not described in simple two-­‐body parameters, analysis must determine the best strategy for targeting a reference NRO as well as how closely a future state should be constrained. In addition, costs will be minimized by determining maneuver directionality based on an identified pattern in the optimal station-keeping solutions or an analytically derived relationship. The candidate station-keeping algorithm must be stable and robust to environmental and vehicle uncertainties as well to navigation estimation and flight control execution errors. To that end, navigation accuracies, the impact on the station-keeping execution errors as well as other vehicle uncertainties need to be assessed. Starting with Orion, current navigation accuracies are evaluated and then navigation requirements are derived assuming a desired station-keeping propellant budget. Third, the performance requirements to and from the NRO are evaluated. Important parameters for developing expected propellant costs include epoch of operation, size and type of NRO, Earth departure and return constraints, as well as abort or early-­‐return capability. Finally, rendezvous and proximity operations are vital aspects of multi-­‐mission human exploration endeavors. The ability to conduct rendezvous and the associated propellant costs are assessed as well as the impacts of various profile assumptions including the location within the NRO the rendezvous is performed. The results of these studies will influence plans for international cooperation on both nearer term proving ground missions and beyond.

Whitley, Ryan↗
NASA NTRS1996

Evaluation of an Anthropometric Human Body Model for Simulated EVA Task Assessment

One of the more mission-critical tasks performed in space is extravehicular activity (EVA) which requires the astronaut to be external to the station or spacecraft, and subsequently at risk from the many threats posed by space. These threats include, but are not limited to: no significant atmosphere, harmful electromagnetic radiation, micrometeoroids, and space debris. To protect the astronaut from this environment, a special EVA suit is worn which is designed to maintain a sustainable atmosphere (at 1/3 atmosphere) and provide protection against the hazards of space. While the EVA suit serves these functions well, it does impose limitations on the astronaut as a consequence of the safety it provides. Since the astronaut is in a virtual vacuum, any atmospheric pressure inside the suit serves to pressurize the suit and restricts mobility of flexible joints (such as fabric). Although some of the EVA suit joints are fixed, rotary-style joints, most of the mobility is achieved by the simple flexibility of the fabric. There are multiple layers of fabric, each of which serves a special purpose in the safety of the astronaut. These multiple layers add to the restriction of motion the astronaut experiences in the space environment. Ground-based testing is implemented to evaluate the capability of EVA-suited astronauts to perform the various tasks in space. In addition to the restriction of motion imposed by the EVA suit, most EVA activity is performed in a micro-gravity (weight less) environment. To simulate weightlessness EVA-suited testing is performed in a neutral buoyancy simulator (NBS). The NBS is composed of a large container of water (pool) in which a weightless environment can be simulated. A subject is normally buoyant in the pressurized suit; however he/she can be made neutrally buoyant with the addition of weights. In addition, most objects the astronaut must interface with in the NBS sink in water and flotation must be added to render them "weightless". The implementation of NBS testing has proven to invaluable in the assessment of EVA activities performed with the Orbiter and is considered to be a key step in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). While the NBS testing is extremely valuable, it does require considerable overhead to maintain and operate. It has been estimated that the cost of utilizing the facility is approximately $10,000 per day. Therefore it is important to maximize the utility of NBS testing for optimal results. One important aspect to consider in any human/worksite interface is the considerable wealth of anthropometric and ergonomic data available. A subset of this information specific to EVA activity is available in NASA standard 3000. The difficulty in implementing this data is that most of the anthropometric information is represented in a two-dimensional format. This poses some limitations in complete evaluation of the astronaut's capabilities in a three-dimensional environment. Advances in computer hardware and software have provided for three-dimensional design and implementation of hardware with the advance of computer aided design (CAD) software. There are a number of CAD products available and most companies and agencies have adopted CAD as a fundamental aspect of the design process. Another factor which supports the use of CAD is the implementation of computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software and hardware which provides for rapid prototyping and decreases the time to product in the design process. It is probable that most hardware to be accessed by astronauts in EVA or IVA (intravehicular activity) has been designed by a CAD system, and is therefore represented in three-dimensional space for evaluation. Because of the implementation of CAD systems and the movement towards early prototyping, a need has arisen in industry and government for tools which facilitate the evaluation of ergonomic consideration in a three-dimensional environment where the hardware has been designed by the CAD tools. One such product is Jack which was developed by the University of Pennsylvania with funding from several government agencies, including NASA. While the primary purpose of Jack is to model human figures in a ground-based (gravity) environment, it can be utilized to evaluate EVA-suited activities as well. The effects of simulated gravity must be turned off by turning off "behaviors". Although Jack provides human figures for manipulation, the primary instrument to be evaluated for EVA mobility is the work envelope provided by the EVA suit. An EVA Jack suit model has been developed by NASA-JSC and was utilized in this study. This suit model provided a more restrictive motion environment as expected for an EVA suited subject. As part of this study, the anthropometric dimensions for a 50th percentile male were compared with basic anthropometric data and were found to be representative for the population group expected in the NASA flight program. The joints for the suit were created in a manner which provided consistent performance with EVA reach envelopes published in NASA standard #3000.

Etter, Brad↗
DOE OSTI2021

The Role of Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology: Proceedings of a Workshop

Quantum concepts hold the potential to enable significant advances in sensing and imaging technologies that could be vital to the study of biological systems. The workshop Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology, held online March 8–10, 2021, was organized to examine the research and development needs to advance biological applications of quantum technology. Hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the event brought together experts working on state-of-the-art, quantum-enabled technologies and scientists who are interested in applying these technologies to biological systems. Through talks, panels, and discussions, the workshop facilitated a better understanding of the current and future biological applications of quantum-enabled technologies in fields such as microbiology, molecular biology, cell biology, plant science, mycology, and many others. The workshop was organized around three main themes. The first, quantum in biology, examined quantum concepts that are hypothesized to be important for life processes and that researchers are working to observe through biological imaging and sensing. The second, quantum for biology, addressed ways to use quantum concepts to enhance technologies for biological imaging and sensing. The third, biology for quantum, offered a wider discussion of how the frontiers of biological imaging and sensing could enable future study using quantum concepts, tools, or technologies. Throughout the workshop, participants identified a wide range of emerging approaches and opportunities at the intersection of quantum physics and biological sensing and imaging. During the workshop, there were some differences in how each speaker defined the term quantum. During one of the panels, Prem Kumar offered thoughts on what phenomena are classical versus quantum, explaining that techniques get progressively more quantum as you move from just having superposition to having superposition with measurement and entanglement. Another explanation from Clarice Aiello delineates the definition into several levels. This includes a base level of “quantum-ness,” which reflects that all matter is made of atoms, and when these particles are isolated they behave based on quantum mechanical principles. A second level is related to quantum coherence, where a single quantum object might be found in a coherent superposition state. A final level, which she described as the quantum-entangled level, involves multiple quantum systems which are entangled among themselves. Overall, the workshop touched on concepts such as superposition, entanglement, and squeezing and their potential implications for communication, computing, and simulation, in addition to the workshop’s main focal area, biological sensing and imaging. At the opening of the workshop, Thorsten Ritz of the University of California, Irvine, identified two questions at the heart of quantum biology: Is the machinery of life quantum mechanical, and can quantum mechanics be used to study the machinery of life in new ways? Participants highlighted systems in which researchers have explored these questions, from the vast array of molecular interactions involved in biological processes such as photosynthesis, to the mechanics involved in cellular functions such as differentiation and aggregation, to the role of oscillating magnetic fields in flight orientation among birds. Sensing and imaging technologies are crucial to biological research; these technologies could both enhance the study of quantum effects and be enhanced by quantum concepts. A critical challenge in biological research is to develop imaging and sensing tools that do not damage or interfere with the often fragile and fleeting systems being studied. Attendees discussed a variety of established and emerging technologies that could enhance noninvasive biological imaging, including single- and two-photon spectroscopy, single-molecule spectroscopy, quantum illumination, ghost imaging, and cryo-electron microscopy. One example came from Marlan Scully who gave a keynote address on the first day of the workshop. Scully emphasized the use of different laser technologies, which exhibit coherence and other quantum properties, in moving toward real-world biological applications, such as the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Both tools and theory will play an important role in advancing quantum biology research and applications. Several participants suggested theorists and experimentalists should work in tandem to understand and model biological processes. While physics often reduces systems to their simplest forms for fundamental insights, participants also noted the value of observing and understanding biological systems in all their “messiness,” capturing both the inner workings of biological systems and the complex interactions that occur within and between organisms. In discussions among participants, several attendees stressed the need to match emerging tools with the right scientific questions. Rather than developing quantum technologies as “a hammer looking for a nail,” participants emphasized a focus on exploring the problems these technologies are best suited to address. For example, it is important to consider the size of the phenomenon being studied, the timescales that are important in answering the scientific question, and other relevant considerations. Every tool along the spectrum from classical to quantum involves its own set of trade-offs. For example, Ted Laurence of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said that quantum measurements, such as single photon counting, fluorescence transitions, and lasers, can take longer to produce the same results as classical measurements. These quantum measurements, however, do not require calibration and can enable new research questions to be answered. Prem Kumar, Northwestern University, noted that, despite their promise, quantum approaches should not be used simply for the sake of using quantum, especially in situations where classical approaches better meet the needs of the researcher. Understanding and applying quantum concepts could enable advances in a wide range of application areas including energy, synthetic biology, medicine, and sustainability. For example, Michelle O’Malley, University of California, Santa Barbara, described how improved noninvasive imaging approaches could help capture the complex interactions and functions involved in the breakdown of organic matter by microbial communities and lead to new technologies for capturing valuable products from plant waste. Several other participants discussed needs in tracking the movement of metabolites and molecules in microbial communities for insights into nutrient cycling in environments such as soil. Margaret Ahmad, Sorbonne University, discussed potential opportunities to leverage the magnetic properties of cryptochromes to advance new treatment approaches for diseases such as COVID-19 and cancer. Looking toward the future development of the field, participants discussed challenges to advancing quantum biology that arise from disciplinary disconnects between physicists and biologists. The siloing of academic research disciplines represents a significant barrier to progress. Disconnects in terminology, motivations and priorities, and structural barriers to collaborative work underscore the need for concerted efforts to bridge these divides. Attendees and speakers offered suggestions for resolving these divergences, establishing a shared language, moving the field forward, and fostering meaningful feedback between disciplines. Overall, participants stressed a need for balance, open communication, collaboration, unity, and clear dialogue on trade-offs between quantum and classical approaches. Keiko Torii, The University of Texas at Austin, said that the best collaborations happen when the project provides mutual advantages that can show off everyone’s talents, each team finds the work interesting, and partners develop a camaraderie to pursue new knowledge. To enable near- and long-term opportunities in this space, participants suggested that exploratory, high-risk funding could improve existing instrumentation to explore quantum enhancement collaboratively. They also emphasized the need for collaboration between quantum physicists and sensing/imaging scientists, which could be advanced through a dedicated quantum biology investigator program. People, even more than technology, will be crucial to the future of quantum biology. Participants explored training, education, and workforce needs to further develop this burgeoning field and cultivate the next generation of scientists. While many programs are still in their nascent stages, participants highlighted examples of approaches and programs being developed at various types of institutions to engage students and professional scientists in quantum biology research. Several participants stressed the need for an inclusive approach, spanning disciplines as well as communities to foster a diverse field fueled by the intellectual contributions of a wide range of people, including historically under-resourced schools and students. To increase awareness and excitement about quantum physics and related areas of biology, attendees suggested capitalizing on the “buzz” around quantum. Several participants emphasized the need to start early, introducing students to quantum concepts and their appealing “weirdness” in K–12 education. Engaging students early—before they become entrenched in traditional disciplinary siloes as typically happens in graduate school—could help to galvanize interest in the area and foster a generation of scientists with the interdisciplinary mindset and skills needed to advance this interdisciplinary field. While these efforts could be advanced at many levels and across multiple sectors, several participants suggested a national quantum biology center could be a valuable hub to coordinate and support quantum biology education and workforce development across academia, industry, and government.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗