Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “characterization and analytical techniques”

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.

1,526 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 19B - Antenna Radiation Patterns

Modern civil and military aircraft are equipped with a variety of communication devices, radio navigation equipment, and air traffic control systems. For all of these devices appropriate antennas must be available to transmit and receive the signals. As a result, as many as 30 antennas, and sometimes even more, are mounted around today's aircraft. For this reason, it is necessary to know the capabilities of the receiving/transmitting equipment on board. These capabilities are driven by the antenna characteristics. Therefore, coverage, shading, and beam pointing pattern data are necessary for optimum electronic coverage. The aircraft antenna has to convert the available power density of the electromagnetic field to an electric voltage at its connector. This voltage level must be sufficiently high to operate the connected equipment. The reciprocity principle states that it makes no difference if the antenna is receiving or transmitting. For the certification of the aircraft antennas it must be proven that the antennas are at least generating the minimum receiver input voltage which is required for each radio service. The prime condition is, of course, that the specified field power densities of the different radio navigation and communication services are available. An important property of a radio frequency link is the electro-magnetic field intensity at every point in space for a given output power of the antenna. As the propagation of radio frequency waves in free space is well known, the spatial distribution of the field intensity needs only be measured at one spatial sphere around the antenna. The information is usually given as distributions along the circumference of flat sections through this sphere: each of these is called an ARP. Several ARPs are usually required to describe the complete spatial antenna pattern of an antenna. In addition to mathematical modeling, measurements on sub-scale models, and static measurements on full size models or aircraft on the ground, dynamic measurements on aircraft in flight play the most important role in the aircraft antenna testing and certification. [19B-1] The shape of an ARP, for one given frequency, is determined by the shape of the antenna and the shape and material of the surface it is mounted on. As the directly transmitted waves interfere with waves reflected by the aircraft skin with its complex geometry, and the surface material parameters are only roughly known, it is not possible to predict the ARP with the required accuracy. In ground measurements the earth's surface also acts as a reflector thereby causing the ground ARP to be different from the in-flight ARP. As the in-flight ARP is the ARP we are actually interested in it becomes clear that it is necessary to conduct in-flight ARP measurements. The Flight Test Engineer must be aware of the needs of the specialists who are establishing the test program for measuring antenna patterns and radar cross sections. These tests will require special test equipment and dedicated flights to obtain the data that they require. This Section provides an introduction to the principles of determining antenna patterns and the flight techniques for determining both antenna patterns and radar cross section. Reference 19B-1 provides detailed information.

Helmut Bothe↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Assessment of LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal

LunaNet provides a common set of interoperable specifications for communication and position, navigation and time (PNT) services and interfaces soon to be implemented in lunar vicinity. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS) provides the design for the GNSS-like Augmented Forward Signal (AFS), which enables orbiting and surface users in lunar space, such as Artemis, to estimate their position, velocity, and time. The specification of AFS defines two orthogonal signal components on a single carrier: the in-phase component (AFS-I), a lower-chip-rate data channel tailored for applications where low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) is critical (e.g., IoT devices or search and rescue), and the quadrature component (AFS-Q), a high-chip-rate data-less pilot signal for high-precision, robust lunar navigation and positioning applications. An initial description of AFS was provided in LNIS 2023, with initial analysis results shown in Dafesh 2024 and Dafesh 2025, and the current signal in space description provided in LNIS 2025. As part of NASA's Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS) project, this work expands upon the initial analysis results and proposes a new expanded set of AFS-Q spreading codes that exceed the cross-correlation and autocorrelation sidelobe performance of L1C and other GNSS signals, while providing additional expansion capabilities for future service satellites. A set of 420 codes was selected from a Weil-based code derived from the prime number 10247, which is larger than the 10243 prime number used to derive BeiDou’s B1C Weil sequences. Both the initial set of 210 codes and the expanded set of 420 codes are shown to provide the best cross-correlation of any 10230-chip satellite navigation codes. The performance is demonstrated for hierarchical sets of spreading codes optimized and organized in sets of 30 codes. The work also compares LunaNet’s AFS to terrestrial GNSS signals in terms of acquisition, tracking, and data demodulation performance. Performance is evaluated for receivers that only track the 1.023 MCPS data channel spreading code for low SWaP IoT use cases, as well as for receivers that track both the 1.023 MCPS data channel and the 5.115 MCPS pilot channel spreading code for high-performance use cases. Performance is assessed in the presence of interference and thermal noise. The analysis is performed in terms of expected operating conditions on the lunar surface. Several unique flexibility aspects of the augmented forward signal are described, including the use of the Q channel’s secondary and tertiary codes to enable variable coherent integrations during acquisition. This is compared to GNSS signals such as L5/E5 and MBOC in terms of achievable processing gain for interference mitigation versus acquisition complexity. The work details acquisition and tracking techniques used to optimally acquire and track the primary, secondary, and tertiary codes on the Q channel, as well as acquisition of the I channel spreading code. Acquisition of the 8 ms, Q channel spreading code is also compared to joint acquisition of the I and Q channel primary codes in noise and interference environments

LCRNS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Assessment of LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal

LunaNet provides a common set of interoperable specifications for communication and position, navigation and time (PNT) services and interfaces soon to be implemented in lunar vicinity. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS) provides the design for the GNSS-like Augmented Forward Signal (AFS), which enables orbiting and surface users in lunar space, such as Artemis, to estimate their position, velocity, and time. The specification of AFS defines two orthogonal signal components on a single carrier: the in-phase component (AFS-I), a lower-chip-rate data channel tailored for applications where low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) is critical (e.g., IoT devices or search and rescue), and the quadrature component (AFS-Q), a high-chip-rate data-less pilot signal for high-precision, robust lunar navigation and positioning applications. An initial description of AFS was provided in [1], with initial analysis results shown in [2] and [3] and the current signal in space description provided in [4]. As part of NASA's Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS) project, this work expands upon the initial analysis results and proposes a new expanded set of AFS-Q spreading codes that exceed the cross-correlation and autocorrelation sidelobe performance of L1C and other GNSS signals, while providing additional expansion capabilities for future provider satellites. A set of 420 codes was selected from a Weil-based code derived from the prime number 10247, which is larger than the 10243 prime number used to derive Beidou’s B1C Weil sequences. Both the initial set of 210 codes and the expanded set of 420 codes are shown to provide the best cross-correlation of any 10230-chip satellite navigation codes. The performance is demonstrated for hierarchical sets of spreading codes optimized and organized in sets of 30 codes. The new codes were developed using an optimization approach and correlation methodology described in [5]. The work also compares LunaNet’s AFS to terrestrial GNSS signals in terms of acquisition, tracking, and data demodulation performance. Performance is evaluated for receivers that only track the 1.023 MCPS data channel spreading code for low SWaP IoT use cases, as well as for receivers that track both the 1.023 MCPS data channel and the 5.115 MCPS pilot channel spreading code for high-performance use cases. Performance is assessed in the presence of interference and thermal noise. The analysis is performed in terms of expected operating conditions on the lunar surface. Several unique flexibility aspects of the augmented forward signal are described, including the use of the Q channel’s secondary and tertiary codes to enable variable coherent integrations during acquisition. This is compared to GNSS signals such as L5/E5 and MBOC in terms of achievable processing gain for interference mitigation versus acquisition complexity. The work details acquisition and tracking techniques used to optimally acquire and track the primary, secondary, and tertiary codes on the Q channel, as well as acquisition of the I channel spreading code. Acquisition of the 8 ms Q channel spreading code is also compared to joint acquisition of the I and Q channel primary codes in noise and interference environments.

LCRNS↗
NASA NTRS2020

Evaluation of Fatigue Damage Accumulation Functions for Delamination Initiation and Propagation

The present report follows on the cohesive fatigue damage model methodology proposed in NASA-TP-2018-219838. In that report, an empirical function describing the incremental damage due to cyclic loading was used to calculate fatigue damage within a cohesive formulation. The form of the function was developed such that, when integrated at a constant stress amplitude from no damage to failure, it produces a life versus load response that is consistent with an S-N diagram. Therefore, the parameters of the damage model could be obtained by fitting the model predictions to an S-N diagram. The finite element analyses performed demonstrate that the cohesive fatigue accumulation function provides a link between the S-N diagram that describes crack initiation, and the Paris law that characterizes the rate of crack propagation. However, when the model was proposed, it was not known whether the form of the damage accumulation function associated with a desired S-N diagram is unique and, if not, if the link between S-N and the Paris law is unique and independent of the fatigue function selected. In the effort described herein, several alternative forms of the damage function that reproduce the desired features of S-N diagrams were found and evaluated. The effects of each of these functions on the predicted parameters of the Paris law and the propagation threshold are discussed. The results indicate that the predicted exponent m of the Paris law is indeed independent of the damage accumulation function. However, different functions predict different values for the pre-factor C of the Paris law. Therefore, the proper damage accumulation function must be selected by comparison with experiments. One of the new damage accumulation functions proposed herein was found to be particularly useful for analysis because of the ease with which the model parameters can be determined with a minimal amount of experimental information. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology and damage function was demonstrated by conducting analyses of a double cantilever beam test, a mixed-mode bending test, and a three-point bending test of a skin/doubler specimen. The results indicate that the same set of model parameters can provide accurate predictions of the rate of fatigue crack propagation for a variety of material interfaces, mode mixities, load levels, and stress ratios.

DKIN/Stiffener Debonding↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exposure of Highly Reflective Far-Ultraviolet Coatings to LEO Environment for TRL Advancement for the Habitable Worlds Observatory

Over the past several years, our team at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), in collaboration with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), have developed several new protected Al coating technologies with improved Far-Ultraviolet (FUV) reflectance performance and more robust environmental stability. These include Al protected with lithium-based fluoride (LiF) coatings such as hot deposited LiF (eLiF), XeF 2 -passivated LiF coatings (XeLiF), Li 3 AlF 6 overcoats, AlF 3 (plasma passivated), and XeF 2 passivated MgF 2 coatings (XeMgF 2 ). However, despite these developments, relatively little experimental information exists regarding the long-term stability of these coatings after simultaneous exposure to the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment. To evaluate their environmental durability and advance their Technology Readiness Level (TRL), representative samples of these coating technologies, Al+XeLiF, Al+eLiF, Al+Li 3 AlF 6 , Al+AlF 3 , Al+XeMgF 2 , and bare Al as reference samples, were flown onboard the International Space Station (ISS) as part of the Materials International Space Station Experiment 20 (MISSE-20). The MISSE platform is operated by Aegis Aerospace for relatively long-duration (e.g. 6 months) external exposure experiments in a space environment. The coatings were deposited on ULE and Zerodur substrates, and witness samples deposited on the same coatings runs, but on glass slides were left on Earth as control. A subset of the flight samples were fitted with MgF 2 windows to reduce direct exposure to atomic oxygen (AO) and charged particles, and still let through UV and other types of radiation on these samples. After approximately 6 months of exposure in the forward-facing (RAM) direction, the samples were returned to Earth and characterized by performing FUV/NUV/VIS/NIR reflectance measurements to quantify degradation, spectroscopic ellipsometry to evaluate coating thickness and optical constants, atomic force microscopy (AFM) to quantify surface roughness evolution during the flight in the ISS. The MgF 2 protective windows were also analyzed through FUV transmission measurements. Comparison with the witness samples left on the ground and with the flown bare Al samples (with just the naturally occurring Al 2 O 3 layer) provided a quantitative assessment of coating thickness variations, optical performance degradation, and morphological changes induced by prolonged exposure to the LEO environment.

Far Ultraviolet (FUV)↗
NASA NTRS2009

Modular Battery Charge Controller

A new approach to masterless, distributed, digital-charge control for batteries requiring charge control has been developed and implemented. This approach is required in battery chemistries that need cell-level charge control for safety and is characterized by the use of one controller per cell, resulting in redundant sensors for critical components, such as voltage, temperature, and current. The charge controllers in a given battery interact in a masterless fashion for the purpose of cell balancing, charge control, and state-of-charge estimation. This makes the battery system invariably fault-tolerant. The solution to the single-fault failure, due to the use of a single charge controller (CC), was solved by implementing one CC per cell and linking them via an isolated communication bus [e.g., controller area network (CAN)] in a masterless fashion so that the failure of one or more CCs will not impact the remaining functional CCs. Each micro-controller-based CC digitizes the cell voltage (V(sub cell)), two cell temperatures, and the voltage across the switch (V); the latter variable is used in conjunction with V(sub cell) to estimate the bypass current for a given bypass resistor. Furthermore, CC1 digitizes the battery current (I1) and battery voltage (V(sub batt) and CC5 digitizes a second battery current (I2). As a result, redundant readings are taken for temperature, battery current, and battery voltage through the summation of the individual cell voltages given that each CC knows the voltage of the other cells. For the purpose of cell balancing, each CC periodically and independently transmits its cell voltage and stores the received cell voltage of the other cells in an array. The position in the array depends on the identifier (ID) of the transmitting CC. After eight cell voltage receptions, the array is checked to see if one or more cells did not transmit. If one or more transmissions are missing, the missing cell(s) is (are) eliminated from cell-balancing calculations. The cell-balancing algorithm is based on the error between the cell s voltage and the other cells and is categorized into four zones of operation. The algorithm is executed every second and, if cell balancing is activated, the error variable is set to a negative low value. The largest error between the cell and the other cells is found and the zone of operation determined. If the error is zero or negative, then the cell is at the lowest voltage and no balancing action is needed. If the error is less than a predetermined negative value, a Cell Bad Flag is set. If the error is positive, then cell balancing is needed, but a hysteretic zone is added to prevent the bypass circuit from triggering repeatedly near zero error. This approach keeps the cells within a predetermined voltage range.

Button, Robert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

vaned diffuser↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

centrifugal compressor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Introduction to the JPSS-2 Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) Government Calibration Data Book (GCDB)

The third Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) is an instrument onboard the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), JPSS-2 (renamed NOAA-21 in orbit) mission. This report is to introduce the JPSS-2 Government Calibration Data Book (J2 GCDB) for ATMS, SN 304. This J2 GCDB document contains key information generated during the calibration testing campaign that is driving parameters for radiometric performance. This document also contains supporting data that augments the calibration results. The values in this document are utilized by ATMS’s calibration packet which is, in turn, an integral component in the interpretation of science data. The calibration data in this report was collected from tests such as shelf-level testing, antenna testing, instrument thermal vacuum (TVAC) testing; satellite TVAC testing; and JPSS-2 post-launch tests. JPSS-2 was launched on November 10, 2022. In the subsequent years, the Government will release an ATMS GCDB for each JPSS mission. We expect that all public users can download these ATMS GCDBs from the NOAA operational Integrated Calibration and Validation System (ICVS) website, see more discussions below. The goal of this GCDB is to demonstrate how to characterize ATMS measurements using JPSS-2 ATMS on-orbit operational data and to provide relevant explanations. This document serves as a primary public domain reference for calibrating operational ATMS Raw Data Records (RDR) science data, as used in the current operational Interface Data Processing Segment (IDPS) system. This same RDR science data is distributed through direct broadcast (DB) to DB users for use in their ground processing systems. This J2 GCDB provides the results of the ATMS system radiometric calibration, the antenna flat reflector emissivity [1], the antenna pattern measurements, the antenna pattern corrected brightness temperature [2], the brightness temperature of the lunar disk [3], Lunar Intrusion (LI) correction algorithm [4], receiver spectral parameters, and mechanical alignment on-orbit pointing results, and the striping effect appeared significantly in S-NPP on-orbit radiance data when the data are compared to the Radiative Transfer Model (RTM) simulation in numerical weather prediction (NWP) system [5]. It also provides the parameters required for conversion of telemetry counts to engineering units, for radiometric calibration, and for antenna beam geo-location. Moreover, it provides JPSS-2 ATMS Spectral Response Functions data, some additional information related to ATMS on-orbit performance, on-orbit lunar intrusion correction parameters and Earth contamination bias, and on how to derive ATMS RDR, antenna Temperature Data Records (TDR), and Sensor Data Records (SDR). Furthermore, an introduction of NOAA operational Integrated Calibration and Validation System (ICVS) website and services is added in this J2 GCDB. This ICVS hosts a long-term monitoring system which allows to visualization and comparison of data from JPSS missions, NOAA legacy Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES). From NOAA Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System (CLASS), the public users can download all JPSS ATMS data products for all JPSS missions.

Microwave Sounder↗
NASA NTRS2026

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

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

Aaron B Regberg↗
NASA NTRS2026

Moon Base Transportation - Deliveries to the Lunar Surface

Development of the Moon Base will enable a home away from home for astronauts who will live and work at humanity’s first lunar outpost. In this effort, NASA’s Moon Transportation Office is responsible for enabling the transformational missions required to deliver habitats, supplies, science payloads, and all other elements needed to cultivate a permanent presence on the Lunar Surface. The Mission Concept (MC) is characterized through evaluation of an end-to-end architecture that can successfully deliver a generalized heavy large-volume payload, in excess of 4000 kg, to a precision landing and touchdown on the lunar surface. The mission architecture utilizes a single launch configuration of a Lunar Lander (LL) with a unique propellant system. The LL has an integral orbital transfer capability and features jettisonable elements. The design circumvents the need for prop transfer on orbit and multiple launch configurations. The launch vehicle (LV) for this work will assume the capability to deliver a payload in excess of 40,000 kg to orbit, affording multiple LV solutions. Considerations for the LL and payload deployment from the fairing are assumed to be handled through compliance with a launch providers’ Interface Requirements Document (IRD). The MC will span from launch at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to terminal descent and touchdown on the lunar surface, requiring a total ΔV on the order of 6 km/s beyond what is required to get the vehicle stack to a 200 km circular Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Major mission phases include: launch and launch vehicle separation, transfer operations, pre-landing navigation, and lunar descent and touchdown. A Concept of Operations (ConOps) is used as the primary design driver for defining architecture of the vehicles necessary to achieve final payload delivery. Numerous ground rules and assumptions will be provided for each phase of the mission. Concept designs for the LL is presented. An emphasis of the design maximizes a feasible path for maturation, manufacturing, and operation. A self-imposed practical consideration for this effort is the incorporation of legacy designed hardware to minimize expensive, time-intensive, and high-risk hardware development cycles. The propulsion system of the LL adopts a conventional storable bipropellant configuration of monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON3). This effort will showcase a unique propellant delivery system to minimize the reliance on propellant management devices (PMDs) during descent. Numerous key constraints have been considered, across the multiple segments of the mission. These include the unique aspects of center of gravity (CG) management, thruster plume effects including self-impingement, propulsion system hardware limitations, navigation during multiple mission phases, and landing gear geometry for uneven terrain. These constraints shape the trades necessary for precision landing of heavy cargo and ensure compatibility with broader Moon Base Transportation concepts. The resulting insights inform future transportation strategies for the Moon and beyond; directly contributing to the development of cargo‑delivery standards that will support the long‑term buildup of a sustainable, continuously inhabited Moon Base.

Lunar Habitat↗
NASA NTRS2025

Erosion Results of the MISSE 9-15 Polymers and Composites Experiment 1-4 (PCE 1-4)

Polymers and other oxidizable materials on the exterior of spacecraft in the low Earth orbit (LEO) space environment can be eroded from reaction with atomic oxygen (AO). Therefore, in order to design durable spacecraft it is important to know the extent of erosion that will occur during a mission. This can be determined by knowing the LEO AO erosion yield, E y (volume loss per incident oxygen atom), of materials susceptible to AO reaction. In addition, recent flight experiments have shown that the AO E y can vary with the AO fluence and/or solar exposure. Therefore, obtaining AO E y data for materials flown on various spaceflight missions is important. NASA Glenn Research Center has flown numerous experiments as part of the Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) missions on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) to characterize the LEO E y of polymers, composites, protective coatings, and other spacecraft materials. Recently, four Glenn experiments with 365 flight (F) samples were flown on ISS’s MISSE-Flight Facility (MISSE-FF). These experiments are the Polymers and Composites Experiment-1 (PCE-1) flown as part of the MISSE-9 mission, the PCE-2 flown as part of the MISSE-10 mission, the PCE-3 flown as part of the MISSE-12 and MISSE-15 missions, and the PCE-4 flown as part of the MISSE-13 mission. Although each experiment had numerous sample objectives, the primary objective was to determine the LEO AO E y of various spacecraft materials as a function of solar irradiation and AO fluence. This paper provides a summary of the erosion data for the PCE 1-4 AO E y samples. The AO E y for 150 samples flown in either the LEO ram, wake, zenith or nadir directions are provided. The AO ram fluence varied from 2.97×10 20 atoms/cm 2 after 0.89 years of direct space exposure (with relatively high levels of Si contamination) on MISSE 12 to 3.93×10 20 atoms/cm 2 after 1.17 years of direct space exposure on MISSE-10. The ram AO E y values for uncoated polymers range from 3.81×10 –25 cm 3 /atom for polytetrafluoroethylene (M9R-C20 F) exposed to an AO fluence of 3.44×10 20 atoms/cm 2 on MISSE-9 to 4.43×10 –23 cm 3 /atom for AO etched low density polyimide aerogel (M12R-C21 F) exposed to an AO fluence of 2.97×10 21 atoms/cm 2 on MISSE-12. Because of the low AO fluence and relatively high Si contamination, a number of PCE-3 wake samples experienced mass gain. Thus, AO E y values are not provided for these samples. Although there are calculated AO E y values for the zenith, wake and nadir samples, the ram AO E y for a particular material is a more reliable value in terms of AO exposure because the zenith, wake and nadir directions were exposed to either no or very little AO fluence and thus other space environmental factors (i.e. vacuum, thermal extremes and thermal cycling, and/or various types of radiation) are responsible for the mass loss.

Erosion yield↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Engineering with Modular Patched Conics for Entry Systems and TPS (TEMPEST)

Brief Presenter Biography (35 word limit): Bohdan Wesely is an Aerospace Engineer in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at Ames. He has worked on a variety of projects for NASA including integrated TPS (thermal protection system) flight hardware deliveries and testing services for commercial partners. Introduction: TEMPEST is a new trajectory analysis framework that is designed to fill the gap between dedicated flight mechanics tools and aerothermal and TPS sizing tools. The project started as an SJSU master’s thesis and has since evolved into a general conceptual design tool capable of studying a wide variety of entry problems. Development is ongoing in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA ARC. Why TEMPEST: Space missions involving entry into a planetary atmosphere involve a series of unique requirements across multiple disciplines. Whether it is traditional entry descent and landing (EDL), or aerocapture, the vehicle must navigate to its target landing location or orbit state, and the TPS must protect the payload during entry. The design process typically involves iterative handoffs between various flight mechanics, flow solver, and material response level tools. During the early conceptual phase, a wide variety of feasible trajectories are simulated in a Monte Carlo scenario which broadly satisfy the mission or landing requirements. Next, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC), and other flow solver analyses are performed at various key trajectory points to generate an aero-database, heating and TPS design requirements also emerge at this stage. At this point, with updated aerodynamics from the various flow solvers, trajectories can be re-run, this in turn can change the required freestream conditions for the CFD tools, and as a project progresses, these analyses converge, and uncertainty is reduced. However, there is always a “hand-off” occurring between two inherently coupled phenomena. Analysis Description: One of the goals with TEMPEST is to use a variety of first principles estimation methods coupled with an atmosphere model to predict vehicle aerothermodynamics across the entire flight regime while propagating a 3 or 6 degree of freedom (DoF) trajectory. Aerodynamics methods include modified Newtonian, Maxwell and Cercignani- Lampis-Lord (CLL) for continuum, transitional, and free molecular flow regimes. Aerothermodynamics include boundary layer and reference enthalpy methods, and Mutation++ for non-equilibrium chemistry modeling. TEMPEST is also capable of stitching multiple trajectory segments together to study mission scenarios like multi-pass aerocapture and aero-gravity assists. Most of the program is implemented in MATLAB using modern system objects, it relies on several C++ shared libraries for supporting tools like Gmsh, the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM), and Mutation++. The various first principles aerothermal estimation methods are discretized across either a structured axisymmetric panel mesh or an unstructured tri-mesh generated from an open-source tool such as Gmsh, this allows solutions on the same mesh to be compared across tools such as CB-Aero. CFD Coupling. A physics-aware, gaussian process CFD anchoring scheme is proposed to adjust the various first principles methods as a CFD database is populated. One goal for this anchoring module is to inform the project where CFD should be run. Full knowledge of the entire trajectory, atmosphere, and aerothermodynamics allows for easier identification of high sensitivity areas and uncertainty quantification. While the first principles effects are well known and proven accurate in existing tools such as CB- Aero and Cart3D, a physics aware CFD anchoring scheme increases tool credibility across a project lifecycle. Material Response Modeling. Correct TPS sizing is critical for optimizing mass for science payloads and ensuring mission success. The process typically involves a thermal analysis along the trajectory with surface heating environments as a boundary condition. Several design constraints are maximum bondline temperature and maximum recession with various margining techniques. The material response tool FIAT, developed out of NASA Ames, is currently being integrated into the TEMPEST environment. TPS recession, shape change, mass loss, and mass property alteration are all factors that can perturb an entry trajectory. For missions like Mars 2020, recession was minimal and was safely handled separately as a post process. For missions such as Jupiter Galileo with a high TPS mass fraction or asteroid entries, recession plays a major role. The proposed fully coupled scheme is to use an epoch-based approach where the trajectory integration is halted after a recession threshold, the energy balance and FIAT are solved at each panel, the mesh, aerodynamics, and mass properties are updated, and the trajectory continues. Several computational tradeoffs have been made during the development of TEMPEST to limit the cost of a single trajectory and preserve its utility as a conceptual, rapid iteration tool. Conclusion: Development of TEMPEST is ongoing and the project is still in its infancy. This talk aims to showcase its unique capabilities to support future NASA entry systems missions.

Bohdan O Wesely↗