Results for “Architecture Gaps” — Page 2

NASA NTRS2006

An Approach to Integrated Spectrum Efficient Network Enhanced Telemetry (iSENET))

As the integrated Network Enhanced Telemetry (iNET) program moves forward in resolving systems engineering design and architecture definition, critical technology "gaps" and a migration path to realizing the integration of this technology are needed to insure a smooth transition from the current legacy point to point telemetry links to a network oriented telemetry system. Specifically, identified by the DoD aeronautical telemetry community is the need for a migration to a network solution for command, control, and transfer of test data by optimizing the physical, data link, and network layers. In this paper, we present a network-centric telemetry approach based on variants of 802.11 that leverages the open standards as well as the previous Advanced Range Telemetry (ARTM) work on the physical layer waveform. Specifically, we present a burst modem approach based on the recent AOFDM 802.11a work, a TDMA-like MAC layer approach based on 802.11e, and then add additional MAC layer features to allow for the multi-hop aeronautical environment using a variant of the current working standards of 802.11s. The combined benefits of the variants obtained from 802.11a, 802.11e, and 802.11s address the needs for both spectrum efficiency in the aeronautical environment and the iNET program.

TDMA↗

NASA NTRS2012

Human Research Program: 2012 Fiscal Year Annual Report

Crew health and performance are critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Risks to health and performance include physiologic effects from radiation, hypogravity, and planetary environments, as well as unique challenges in medical treatment, human factors, and support of behavioral health. The scientists and engineers of the Human Research Program (HRP) investigate and reduce the greatest risks to human health and performance, and provide essential countermeasures and technologies for human space exploration. In its seventh year of operation, the HRP continued to refine its management architecture of evidence, risks, gaps, tasks, and deliverables. Experiments continued on the International Space Station (ISS), on the ground in analog environments that have features similar to those of spaceflight, and in laboratory environments. Data from these experiments furthered the understanding of how the space environment affects the human system. These research results contributed to scientific knowledge and technology developments that address the human health and performance risks. As shown in this report, HRP has made significant progress toward developing medical care and countermeasure systems for space exploration missions which will ultimately reduce risks to crew health and performance.

Effenhauser, Laura↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗

NASA NTRS1992

Processor architecture and data buffering

A set of architectures from three major architecture families: stack, register, and memory-to-memory is discussed. It is shown that scalable architectures are not applicable for low-density technologies because they require at least 32 words of local memory. Software support is shown to be capable of bridging the performance gap between scalable and nonscalable architectures. A register architecture with 32 words of local memory allocated interprocedurally outperforms scalable architectures with equal sizes local memories and even some with larger size local memories. The performance advantage of unscalable architectures becomes significant when in addition to quality compile-time support, a small cache is added to an unscalable architecture. A 32-register architecture with 512 byte cache executes 20 percent less cycles when compared with an 8-set multiple overlapping set organization.

Mulder, Hans↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS TE-6 Multiband Vegetation Imager Data

The BOREAS TE-6 team collected data in support of its efforts to examine the influence of vegetation and climate on the major carbon fluxes in boreal tree species. A newly developed ground-based canopy imaging system called an MVI was tested and used by the BOREAS TE-06 team to collect measurements of the canopy crap fraction (sky fraction), canopy gap-size distribution (size and frequency of gaps between foliage in canopy), branch architecture, and leaf angle distribution (fraction of leaf area in specific leaf inclination classes assuming azimuthal symmetry). Measurements of the canopy gap-size distribution are used to derive canopy clumping indices that can be used to adjust indirect LAI measurements made in nonrandom forests. These clumping factors will also help to describe the radiation penetration in clumped canopies more accurately by allowing for simple adjustments to Beer's law. Measurements of the above quantities were obtained at BOREAS NSA-OJP site in IFC-2 in 1994, at the SSA-OA in July 1995, and at the SSA-OBS and SSA-OA sites in IFC-2 in 1996. Modeling studies were also performed to further validate MVI measurements and to gain a more complete understanding of boreal forest canopy architecture. By using MVI measurements and Monte Carlo simulations, clumping indices as a function of zenith angle were derived for the three main boreal species studied during BOREAS. The analyzed data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distrobuted Activity Archive Center (DAAC).

Hall, Forrest G.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Developments in Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology

NASA has been pursuing the development and demonstration of enabling and enhancing technologies for Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) in collaboration with the US industry. NASA’s vision for current and future space exploration requires high-performance chemical and nuclear propulsion solutions that utilize cryogens. The Agency will use cryogenic fluids for Earth-to-orbit transportation, human missions to the Moon and Mars, planetary exploration, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) production. All these architectures will require state-of-the-art long-duration storage on the surface and in-space transfer for refueling. This paper focuses on key CFM technology developments completed or ongoing by the Cryogenic Fluid Management Portfolio Office within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The CFM Portfolio Office, partnered with US aerospace industry, has invested in CFM technology ground and flight demonstrations, focused on maturing CFM hardware and operations for Artemis and Moon to Mars activities. These demonstrations additionally provide NASA with data to inform numerical modeling activities for verification and validation of design tools and approaches for future missions. This paper includes discussion on remaining high-priority open CFM technology gaps for Mar-forward architectures and initiatives for closure.

Cryogenic Fluid Management↗

NASA NTRS1993

Alternative Cross-Section Towpregs For Robotic Layups

Proposed process suggests robotic placement processing improvements realized by altering cross-sectional shape of wide and flat ribbon materials. Angled cross-section helps composite ribbons to align themselves and correct adjacent tow gaps and overlaps. New prepreg architectures include isosceles triangles, parallelograms, hexagons, and variations of trapezoids.

Baucom, Robert M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Overview of the Contributing Factor Map and How it can Support your Research

The Contributing Factor Map (CFM) is a visual representation of a taxonomy of factors influencing human health and performance in space. This presentation will give an overview of its development and its structure. It will describe various uses of the CFM that can support researchers working within the Human Research Program (HRP) Architecture of Evidence-Risk-Gap-Task-Deliverable. For example, during the Risk phase, the CFM can be used as a "menu" to help formulate a qualitative model of the factors contributing to specific consequences of concern. It provides a reference set of factors from across the operational, vehicle design, and human domains that otherwise might not be considered if approaching a risk from a specific domain perspective. Using the CFM as a reference can increase awareness of potential cross-disciplinary collaborations for overall risk mitigation. The CFM can also be used as a framework for identifying gaps in knowledge about a risk. This identification can support the subsequent development of gaps and tasks comprising the research plan aimed at risk mitigation. Examples of these types of applications of the CFM will be discussed and information on the support available to researchers in using it will be provided.

Mindock, Jennifer A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Life Support↗

NASA NTRS2018

Blockchain Application Within a Multi-Sensor Satellite Architecture

With the thrust towards multi-sensor satellite architectures for earth and space exploration, such as constellations and swarms, new technologies are required to enable the transition to this future capability. One of the areas of interest is establishing secure, efficient and prioritized data and command communication pathways among ground and space-based sources for such systems. This paper presents early research results on the potential role, capabilities and value of blockchain usage within constellation and swarm satellite architectures. It demonstrates the use of blockchain's smart contract and distributed ledger capabilities for secure and prioritized multi-sensor satellite collaborative data exchanges, as well as the logging and tracking of command and control events. Adapting and utilizing this emerging technology will aid in addressing technology gaps expected from future constellation flight architectures, such as managing collective computational operations (correlation), dynamic and autonomous observation planning, time-critical events, and provenance tied to ground and space-based autonomous operations and control recordkeeping. In this scenario blockchain is applied in encrypted command transmittal to multiple, yet specific, entities enabling acknowledgement transmittals, performance scalability, and automatic event-based triggering.

Mital, Rohit↗

NASA NTRS2010

L(sub 1) Adaptive Flight Control System: Flight Evaluation and Technology Transition

Certification of adaptive control technologies for both manned and unmanned aircraft represent a major challenge for current Verification and Validation techniques. A (missing) key step towards flight certification of adaptive flight control systems is the definition and development of analysis tools and methods to support Verification and Validation for nonlinear systems, similar to the procedures currently used for linear systems. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control architectures for closing some of the gaps in certification of adaptive flight control systems, which may facilitate the transition of adaptive control into military and commercial aerospace applications. As illustrative examples, we present the results of a piloted simulation evaluation on the NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle, and results of an extensive flight test program conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School to demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control as a verifiable robust adaptive flight control system.

Xargay, Enric↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Situ Resource Utilization Options for the Moon and Mars

In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) is key to enabling extended presence at exploration locations. NASA’s focus for ISRU to date has been human exploration locations: the Moon and Mars. Likewise the primary target for ISRU has been the production of mission consumables for propulsion and life support. Producing oxygen alone from minerals on the Moon or atmosphere on Mars can provide the majority of these consumables. However, accessing water at either location allows for full propellant production (fuel and oxidizer) as well as other applications (eg life support). Current and previous study efforts have looked at mission architectures and ISRU mass payback for these options. Studies have also identified gaps in information needed to design effective ISRU hardware and choose best architectures

In-Situ Resource Utilization↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗