Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Relative navigation capabilities”

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.

At least 361 records · Page 20

Assessment and Verification of SLS Block 1-B Exploration Upper Stage State and Stage Disposal Performance

One of the SLS Navigation System's key performance requirements is a constraint on the payload system's delta-v allocation to correct for insertion errors due to vehicle state uncertainty at payload separation. The SLS navigation team has developed a Delta-Delta-V analysis approach to assess the effect on trajectory correction maneuver (TCM) design needed to correct for navigation errors. This approach differs from traditional covariance analysis based methods and makes no assumptions with regard to the propagation of the state dynamics. This allows for consideration of non-linearity in the propagation of state uncertainties. The Delta-Delta-V analysis approach re-optimizes perturbed SLS mission trajectories by varying key mission states in accordance with an assumed state error. The state error is developed from detailed vehicle 6-DOF Monte Carlo analysis or generated using covariance analysis. These perturbed trajectories are compared to a nominal trajectory to determine necessary TCM design. To implement this analysis approach, a tool set was developed which combines the functionality of a 3-DOF trajectory optimization tool, Copernicus, and a detailed 6-DOF vehicle simulation tool, Marshall Aerospace Vehicle Representation in C (MAVERIC). In addition to delta-v allocation constraints on SLS navigation performance, SLS mission requirement dictate successful upper stage disposal. Due to engine and propellant constraints, the SLS Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) must dispose into heliocentric space by means of a lunar fly-by maneuver. As with payload delta-v allocation, upper stage disposal maneuvers must place the EUS on a trajectory that maximizes the probability of achieving a heliocentric orbit post Lunar fly-by considering all sources of vehicle state uncertainty prior to the maneuver. To ensure disposal, the SLS navigation team has developed an analysis approach to derive optimal disposal guidance targets. This approach maximizes the state error covariance prior to the maneuver to develop and re-optimize a nominal disposal maneuver (DM) target that, if achieved, would maximize the potential for successful upper stage disposal. For EUS disposal analysis, a set of two tools was developed. The first considers only the nominal pre-disposal maneuver state, vehicle constraints, and an a priori estimate of the state error covariance. In the analysis, the optimal nominal disposal target is determined. This is performed by re-formulating the trajectory optimization to consider constraints on the eigenvectors of the error ellipse applied to the nominal trajectory. A bisection search methodology is implemented in the tool to refine these dispersions resulting in the maximum dispersion feasible for successful disposal via lunar fly-by. Success is defined based on the probability that the vehicle will not impact the lunar surface and will achieve a characteristic energy (C3) relative to the Earth such that it is no longer in the Earth-Moon system. The second tool propagates post-disposal maneuver states to determine the success of disposal for provided trajectory achieved states. This is performed using the optimized nominal target within the 6-DOF vehicle simulation. This paper will discuss the application of the Delta-Delta-V analysis approach for performance evaluation as well as trajectory re-optimization so as to demonstrate the system's capability in meeting performance constraints. Additionally, further discussion of the implementation of assessing disposal analysis will be provided.

Patrick, Sean↗

Automated Escape Guidance Algorithms for An Escape Vehicle

An escape vehicle was designed to provide an emergency evacuation for crew members living on a space station. For maximum escape capability, the escape vehicle needs to have the ability to safely evacuate a station in a contingency scenario such as an uncontrolled (e.g., tumbling) station. This emergency escape sequence will typically be divided into three events: The fust separation event (SEP1), the navigation reconstruction event, and the second separation event (SEP2). SEP1 is responsible for taking the spacecraft from its docking port to a distance greater than the maximum radius of the rotating station. The navigation reconstruction event takes place prior to the SEP2 event and establishes the orbital state to within the tolerance limits necessary for SEP2. The SEP2 event calculates and performs an avoidance burn to prevent station recontact during the next several orbits. This paper presents the tools and results for the whole separation sequence with an emphasis on the two separation events. The fust challenge includes collision avoidance during the escape sequence while the station is in an uncontrolled rotational state, with rotation rates of up to 2 degrees per second. The task of avoiding a collision may require the use of the Vehicle's de-orbit propulsion system for maximum thrust and minimum dwell time within the vicinity of the station vicinity. The thrust of the propulsion system is in a single direction, and can be controlled only by the attitude of the spacecraft. Escape algorithms based on a look-up table or analytical guidance can be implemented since the rotation rate and the angular momentum vector can be sensed onboard and a-priori knowledge of the position and relative orientation are available. In addition, crew intervention has been provided for in the event of unforeseen obstacles in the escape path. The purpose of the SEP2 burn is to avoid re-contact with the station over an extended period of time. Performing this maneuver properly requires knowledge of the orbital state, which is obtained during the navigation state reconstruction event. Since the direction of the delta-v of the SEPI maneuver is a random variable with respect to the Local Vertical Local Horizontal (LVLH) coordinate system, calculating the required SEP2 burn is a challenge. This problem was solved using a neural network as a model-free function approximation technique.

Flanary, Ronald↗

A Vision and Roadmap for Increasing User Autonomy in Flight Operations in the National Airspace

The purpose of Air Transportation is to move people and cargo safely, efficiently and swiftly to their destinations. The companies and individuals who use aircraft for this purpose, the airspace users, desire to operate their aircraft according to a dynamically optimized business trajectory for their specific mission and operational business model. In current operations, the dynamic optimization of business trajectories is limited by constraints built into operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) for reasons of safety and operational needs of the air navigation service providers. NASA has been developing and testing means to overcome many of these constraints and permit operations to be conducted closer to the airspace user's changing business trajectory as conditions unfold before and during the flight. A roadmap of logical steps progressing toward increased user autonomy is proposed, beginning with NASA's Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR) concept that enables flight crews to make informed, deconflicted flight-optimization requests to air traffic control. These steps include the use of data communications for route change requests and approvals, integration with time-based arrival flow management processes under development by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), increased user authority for defining and modifying downstream, strategic portions of the trajectory, and ultimately application of self-separation. This progression takes advantage of existing FAA NextGen programs and RTCA standards development, and it is designed to minimize the number of hardware upgrades required of airspace users to take advantage of these advanced capabilities to achieve dynamically optimized business trajectories in NAS operations. The roadmap is designed to provide operational benefits to first adopters so that investment decisions do not depend upon a large segment of the user community becoming equipped before benefits can be realized. The issues of equipment certification and operational approval of new procedures are addressed in a way that minimizes their impact on the transition by deferring a change in the assignment of separation responsibility until a large body of operational data is available to support the safety case for this change in the last roadmap step.This paper will relate the roadmap steps to ongoing activities to clarify the economics-based transition to these technologies for operational use.

Cotton, William B.↗

A Prognostics Framework Development for Swarm Satellite Formations

Prognostics is the science of predicting the failure(s) of a component or a system and understanding how the performance will change in the event of a failure or degradation mechanism. With accurate predictions of possible failures, autonomous mitigative actions can be taken to correct/repair any issues or alert human operators of a failure threshold exceedance requiring condition-based maintenance. Although there is extensive research on failure predictions for a component or a system, there are significantly more opportunities to foray into failure predictions and prognostics for a system of systems such as an airspace consisting of multiple aircraft, a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles, and a swarm of intelligent satellite systems. Failure prediction and mitigation are particularly important in autonomous systems such as satellite swarm systems that need effective resource management and minimal human interactions. Based on NASA's decadal survey, there is a clear need to prioritize the development of satellite swarm technology for studies of space physics and Earth science. The science community will propose future missions that return in-situ measurements from a 3-D (three-dimensional) volume of space, with relative spacecraft motion and inter-satellite baselines controlled according to the mission objectives. For such multi-spacecraft missions, it is required that ground operations resources do not scale with the number of satellites, thus compromising the swarm or leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation. Swarms of tens or hundreds of small satellites will require autonomy in attitude control, navigation and failure. Although significant research has been conducted in the areas of autonomous formation flying algorithms, less attention has been given to the development of resilient systems robust to failures.The focus of this research paper is the integration of model-based prognostics into the swarm dynamics control and decision-making algorithms. We simulate swarm management strategies for a subsystem failure to demonstrate the importance of failure predictions by comparing two cases: (i) no health information is provided to the system and utilized in the decision-making process and (2) system health information is obtained using prognostics and employed by the control system. One example scenario presented is for the GPS (Global Positioning System) system of an individual satellite to perform off-nominally due to increasing estimated error. In this scenario, the keep-out zone for that satellite would become more conservative, thereby decreasing the risk of collision. This is achieved via tuning the individual artificial repulsive functions assigned to each satellite.This paper is structured as follows. First we provide an overview of current swarm technology development, where we specifically use the term swarm to define multiple satellites flying in formation in similar orbits, with cross-link communication and station-keeping capabilities. Second, we give an introduction to the Swarm Orbital Dynamics Advisor (SODA), a tool that accepts high-level configuration commands and provides the orbital maneuvers required to achieve the prescribed formation configuration. Third, we provide the details of the model-based prognostics algorithm implementation in SODA. Finally, we present different case studies for potential component/subsystem failures and the swarm responses based with and without failure prediction information.

prognostics↗

PEG Enhancement for EM1 and EM2+ Missions

NASA is currently building the Space Launch System (SLS) Block-1 launch vehicle for the Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) test flight. The next evolution of SLS, the Block-1B Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), is currently being designed. The Block-1 and Block-1B vehicles will use the Powered Explicit Guidance (PEG) algorithm. Due to the relatively low thrust-to-weight ratio of the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), certain enhancements to the Block-1 PEG algorithm are needed to perform Block-1B missions. In order to accommodate mission design for EM-2 and beyond, PEG has been significantly improved since its use on the Space Shuttle program. The current version of PEG has the ability to switch to different targets during Core Stage (CS) or EUS flight, and can automatically reconfigure for a single Engine Out (EO) scenario, loss of communication with the Launch Abort System (LAS), and Inertial Navigation System (INS) failure. The Thrust Factor (TF) algorithm uses measured state information in addition to a priori parameters, providing PEG with an improved estimate of propulsion information. This provides robustness against unknown or undetected engine failures. A loft parameter input allows LAS jettison while maximizing payload mass. The current PEG algorithm is now able to handle various classes of missions with burn arcs much longer than were seen in the shuttle program. These missions include targeting a circular LEO orbit with a low-thrust, long-burn-duration upper stage, targeting a highly eccentric Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) orbit, targeting a disposal orbit using the low-thrust Reaction Control System (RCS), and targeting a hyperbolic orbit. This paper will describe the design and implementation of the TF algorithm, the strategy to handle EO in various flight regimes, algorithms to cover off-nominal conditions, and other enhancements to the Block-1 PEG algorithm. This paper illustrates challenges posed by the Block-1B vehicle, and results show that the improved PEG algorithm is capable for use on the SLS Block 1-B vehicle as part of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control System.

Von der Porten, Paul↗

X-Band Radar for Studies of Tropical Storms from High Altitude UAV Platform

The increased role of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in NASA's suborbital program has created a strong interest in the development of instruments with new capabilities, more compact sizes and reduced weights than the instruments currently operated on manned aircrafts. There is a strong demand and tremendous potential for using high altitude UAV (HUAV) to carry weather radars for measurements of reflectivity and wind fields from tropical storms. Tropical storm genesis frequently occurs in ocean regions that are inaccessible to piloted aircraft due to the long off shore range and the required periods of time to gather significant data. Important factors of interest for the study of hurricane genesis include surface winds, profiled winds, sea surface temperatures, precipitation, and boundary layer conditions. Current satellite precipitation and surface wind sensors have resolutions that are too large and revisit times that are too infrequent to study this problem. Furthermore, none of the spaceborne sensors measure winds within the storm itself. A dual beam X-band Doppler radar, UAV Radar (URAD), is under development at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center for the study of tropical storms from HUAV platforms, such as a Global Hawk. X-band is the most desirable frequency for airborne weather radars since these can be built in a relatively compact size using off-the-shelf components which cost significantly less than other higher frequency radars. Furthermore, X-band radars provide good sensitivity with tolerable attenuation in storms. The low-cost and light-weight URAD will provide new capabilities for studying hurricane genesis by analyzing the vertical structure of tropical cyclones as well as 3D reflectivity and wind fields in clouds. It will enable us to measure both the 3D precipitation structure and surface winds by using two antenna beams: fixed nadir and conical scanning each produced by its associated subsystem. The nadir subsystem is a magnetron based radar modified from a marine radar transceiver. It is capable of measuring vertical reflectivity and velocity profile while being a lower-cost, smaller size, and lighter weight version of the NASA ER-2 Doppler Radar (EDOP), which has flown during many NASA field campaigns and has provided valuable scientific information on hurricanes and weather phenomena. Unfortunately, EDOP is too large and heavy for most UAV platforms, but the experience gained with this instrument provided us with the heritage to build a new low-cost, light-weight, smaller system that will be capable of flying on UAVs. The scanning subsystem uses a TWT transmitter and provides measurements of 3D reflectivity/wind fields in-clouds. Conical scanning of the radar beam at a 35 deg. incidence angle will also provide information of surface wind speed and direction derived from the surface return over a single 360 deg. sweep. URAD data system will be Linux based with the capability of autonomous operation. It will utilize cutting edge digital receiver and FPGA technologies to carry out the data acquisition and processing tasks. High speed navigation data from the aircraft will also be captured and saved along with radar data for 3D measurement field reconstruction and aircraft motion correction. There is a tremendous potential for UAVs to carry down-looking weather radars for measurements of reflectivity, horizontal and vertical winds from tropical storms. With operation from HUAV platforms, the dual beam X-band radar under development promises to provide greatly needed information for tropical storm research.

Rodriquez, Shannon↗

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗

Strategic Deconfliction Performance: Results and Analysis from the NASA UTM Technical Capability Level 4 Demonstration

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) refers to the service-based, cooperative approach to the management of small UAS in the National Airspace System that is safe, scalable, and fair. UTM provides the means to manage the airspace in a complementary manner that does not burden the current air traffic control workforce or infrastructure but allows the Air Navigation Service Provider to maintain its regulatory and operational authority of the airspace. A key feature of UTM is the ability to provide operators the means to strategically deconflict operations from others in the airspace through the digital exchange of information via supporting services. Through this approach, the four-dimensional operation volumes that encompass the intent of operators in a given area are discoverable and can be used for airspace awareness as well as planning conflict free operations that account for and avoid other operations. In certain cases, it is also possible to negotiate volume intersections for shared airspace use without the need to re-plan. In the NASA UTM concept, strategic deconfliction is the first layer of three in the overall conflict management model. The three layers of the conflict management model, which follow the International Civil Aviation Organization’s scheme [ICAO 2005] are: strategic conflict management, separate provision, and collision avoidance. In UTM, the strategic layer mostly occurs prior to departure, but is applicable to en route operations with sufficient planning horizon. The initial requirements for a strategic deconfliction capability within UTM are defined in a NASA publication [Rios 2018]. Within the concept and implementation of service-provided strategic deconfliction is the notion of priority. It is understood that there are instances in which an operation requires a priority designation within the UTM system and special handling accordingly to provide situation awareness and facilitate appropriate responses from other airspace users. Examples of situations requiring priority designation include: when an operator declares an emergency due to problems with the vehicle or its immediate surroundings; operations that are in support of certain organizations (e.g., public safety and first responders); or special missions that also require priority use of airspace (e.g., emergency medical deliveries). UAS Volume Reservations (UVRs) also relate to the topic of priority in the sense that the airspace that the volume encompasses has a different status or classification in which unassociated operations must vacate if inside, or avoid if outside, through strategic deconfliction with the volume. Operations that are specially permitted to access the UVR area are typically assigned priority status given the nature of their mission and their associated credentials. The ability to perform strategic deconfliction, handle certain operations with a priority distinction, and establish UVRs that are communicated throughout the UTM system, is predicated on an architecture that has been established through an evolutionary process in response to close collaboration with stakeholders from government and industry. Another important and influential aspect of these capabilities and architecture is the live, distributed flight tests that have been conducted across the Technical Capability Levels (TCLs) that culminated with a set of complex tests performed as part of TCL4 [Rios 2020]. The TCL4 flight test involved two FAA-designated UAS test sites building teams to collaborate with NASA’s UTM Project on the execution of several detailed, small UAS scenarios in urban environments.

conflict management↗

Stardust Navigation Covariance Analysis

The Stardust spacecraft was launched on February 7, 1999 aboard a Boeing Delta-II rocket. Mission participants include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA) and the University of Washington. The primary objective of the mission is to collect in-situ samples of the coma of comet Wild-2 and return those samples to the Earth for analysis. Mission design and operational navigation for Stardust is performed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). This paper will describe the extensive JPL effort in support of the Stardust pre-launch analysis of the orbit determination component of the mission covariance study. A description of the mission and it's trajectory will be provided first, followed by a discussion of the covariance procedure and models. Predicted accuracy's will be examined as they relate to navigation delivery requirements for specific critical events during the mission. Stardust was launched into a heliocentric trajectory in early 1999. It will perform an Earth Gravity Assist (EGA) on January 15, 2001 to acquire an orbit for the eventual rendezvous with comet Wild-2. The spacecraft will fly through the coma (atmosphere) on the dayside of Wild-2 on January 2, 2004. At that time samples will be obtained using an aerogel collector. After the comet encounter Stardust will return to Earth when the Sample Return Capsule (SRC) will separate and land at the Utah Test Site (UTTR) on January 15, 2006. The spacecraft will however be deflected off into a heliocentric orbit. The mission is divided into three phases for the covariance analysis. They are 1) Launch to EGA, 2) EGA to Wild-2 encounter and 3) Wild-2 encounter to Earth reentry. Orbit determination assumptions for each phase are provided. These include estimated and consider parameters and their associated a-priori uncertainties. Major perturbations to the trajectory include 19 deterministic and statistical maneuvers planned for the mission. The spacecraft is three axis stabilized and has unbalanced thrusters for attitude control. Accelerations due to the attitude control system are treated stochastically. The tracking scenario for the study is patterned after the actual schedule employed during the different phases of the mission. Conventional X-band two-way Doppler and SRA range data was simulated and the standard accuracy for these data types was assumed throughout most of the mission. However, a deweighting scheme was used for the Doppler data during times of low Sun-Earth-Probe angles, especially in the case of the DSM. Optical data is assumed to be available starting at 50 days prior to the comet encounter. The optical data will be used to improve the ephemeris of Wild-2, which is considered crucial to properly target the comet flyby. Results of the covariance analysis are presented for all mission phases. Navigation capability will be discussed in terms of the uncertainty in the encounter B-Plane (B.R and B.T) and linearized time of flight. Delivery errors based on the final maneuver prior to the comet encounter will be presented. The most stringent navigation requirement is for the Earth reentry. The uncertainty in the flight path angle must be less than 0.02 degree (orbit determination and maneuver performance) to assure successful recovery of the SRC. Results presented show that this requirement can be met.

Menon, Premkumar R.↗

In-Flight Guidance, Navigation, and Control Performance Results for the GOES-16 Spacecraft

The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R), which launched in November 2016, is the first of the next generation geostationary weather satellites. GOES-R provides 4 times the resolution, 5 times the observation rate, and 3 times the number of spectral bands for Earth observations compared with its predecessor spacecraft. Additionally, Earth relative and Sun-relative pointing and pointing stability requirements are maintained throughout reaction wheel desaturation events and station keeping activities, allowing GOES-R to provide continuous Earth and sun observations. This paper reviews the pointing control, pointing stability, attitude knowledge, and orbit knowledge requirements necessary to realize the ambitious Image Navigation and Registration (INR) objectives of GOES-R. This paper presents a comparison between low-frequency on-orbit pointing results and simulation predictions for both the Earth Pointed Platform (EPP) and Sun Pointed Platform (SPP). Results indicate excellent agreement between simulation predictions and observed on-orbit performance, and compliance with pointing performance requirements. The EPP instrument suite includes 6 seismic accelerometers sampled at 2 KHz, allowing in-flight verification of jitter responses and comparison back to simulation predictions. This paper presents flight results of acceleration, shock response spectrum (SRS), and instrument line of sight responses for various operational scenarios and instrument observation modes. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the dual-isolation approach employed on GOES-R. The spacecraft provides attitude and rate data to the primary Earth-observing instrument at 100 Hz, which are used to adjust instrument scanning. The data must meet accuracy and latency numbers defined by the Integrated Rate Error (IRE) requirements. This paper discusses the on-orbit IRE results, showing compliance to these requirements with margin. During the spacecraft checkout period, IRE disturbances were observed and subsequently attributed to thermal control of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) mounting interface. Adjustments of IMU thermal control and the resulting improvements in IRE are presented. Orbit knowledge represents the final element of INR performance. Extremely accurate orbital position is achieved by GPS navigation at Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). On-orbit performance results are shown demonstrating compliance with the stringent orbit position accuracy requirements of GOES-R, including during station keeping activities and momentum desaturation events. As we show in this paper, the on-orbit performance of the GNC design provides the necessary capabilities to achieve GOES-R mission objectives.

Chapel, Jim↗

Digital Beamforming Scatterometer

This paper discusses scatterometer measurements collected with multi-mode Digital Beamforming Synthetic Aperture Radar (DBSAR) during the SMAP-VEX 2008 campaign. The 2008 SMAP Validation Experiment was conducted to address a number of specific questions related to the soil moisture retrieval algorithms. SMAP-VEX 2008 consisted on a series of aircraft-based.flights conducted on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware in the fall of 2008. Several other instruments participated in the campaign including the Passive Active L-Band System (PALS), the Marshall Airborne Polarimetric Imaging Radiometer (MAPIR), and the Global Positioning System Reflectometer (GPSR). This campaign was the first SMAP Validation Experiment. DBSAR is a multimode radar system developed at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center that combines state-of-the-art radar technologies, on-board processing, and advances in signal processing techniques in order to enable new remote sensing capabilities applicable to Earth science and planetary applications [l]. The instrument can be configured to operate in scatterometer, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), or altimeter mode. The system builds upon the L-band Imaging Scatterometer (LIS) developed as part of the RadSTAR program. The radar is a phased array system designed to fly on the NASA P3 aircraft. The instrument consists of a programmable waveform generator, eight transmit/receive (T/R) channels, a microstrip antenna, and a reconfigurable data acquisition and processor system. Each transmit channel incorporates a digital attenuator, and digital phase shifter that enables amplitude and phase modulation on transmit. The attenuators, phase shifters, and calibration switches are digitally controlled by the radar control card (RCC) on a pulse by pulse basis. The antenna is a corporate fed microstrip patch-array centered at 1.26 GHz with a 20 MHz bandwidth. Although only one feed is used with the present configuration, a provision was made for separate corporate feeds for vertical and horizontal polarization. System upgrades to dual polarization are currently under way. The DBSAR processor is a reconfigurable data acquisition and processor system capable of real-time, high-speed data processing. DBSAR uses an FPGA-based architecture to implement digitally down-conversion, in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) demodulation, and subsequent radar specific algorithms. The core of the processor board consists of an analog-to-digital (AID) section, three Altera Stratix field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), an ARM microcontroller, several memory devices, and an Ethernet interface. The processor also interfaces with a navigation board consisting of a GPS and a MEMS gyro. The processor has been configured to operate in scatterometer, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and altimeter modes. All the modes are based on digital beamforming which is a digital process that generates the far-field beam patterns at various scan angles from voltages sampled in the antenna array. This technique allows steering the received beam and controlling its beam-width and side-lobe. Several beamforming techniques can be implemented each characterized by unique strengths and weaknesses, and each applicable to different measurement scenarios. In Scatterometer mode, the radar is capable to.generate a wide beam or scan a narrow beam on transmit, and to steer the received beam on processing while controlling its beamwidth and side-lobe level. Table I lists some important radar characteristics

Rincon, Rafael F.↗

An Approach for Defining IASMS Services, Functions, and Capabilities

Assuring safety in the NAS with the inclusion of new entrants, such as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), will require overcoming unique safety challenges that result from combining innovative technologies with novel airspace concepts for moving people and cargo using autonomous vehicles. The focus of the In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) is to overcome AAM’s safety assurance challenges. The IASMS Concept of Operations (ConOps) describes an interconnected set of services, functions, and capabilities (SFCs) designed to manage operational risks, identify unknown risks, and inform system designs. This paper describes an approach for defining SFCs based on technology trends in research, assessment of known and unknown risks in voluntary safety reports, and causal and contributing factors in aviation accidents and incidents. This approach would identify potential SFCs that further expand the Monitor, Assess, and Mitigate (M-A-M) functionality that represents the enabling framework of the IASMS. Safety implications that will result from integration of AAM in the transformation of the National Airspace System (NAS) were addressed in National Academies committees reports on AAM and IASMS. Development of a ConOps for IASMS was a top recommendation and can be represented as a reframing of safety assurance that builds on real-time alerting such as the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, and adds the more encompassing in-time temporal parameter in recognition of the different timelines for collecting and assessing safety data for risk mitigations. For example, mining for safety trends from data sources such as the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing system occurs over a longer time period. Research on AAM operations poses that SFCs can be designed to monitor the safety margin appropriate for AAM including with regards to the distance between current flight parameters and nominal ideal conditions. These in-time comparisons will become more complex as the density of operations increases at least in certain areas and can include planned and actual 4D trajectory, and in-time comparisons having implications on conflict modeling and prediction including expected and actual departure time, fix/waypoint crossing times, and arrival time. These comparisons would be integrated as part of SFCs that redefine and inform new safety margin. An increased safety margin improves management of operational risks while reducing the potential for anomalies. An increased safety margin also has implications for operator confidence in the certainty of its operations and trust in automation. Technology trends in research could be used to refine existing SFCs and define needs for additional SFCs that provide safety improvements to the design and operation of vehicles, airspace design, and operator performance requirements. NASA is developing innovative approaches to safeguard against major accidents and incidents that have occurred in the NAS and those anticipated with the inclusion of envisioned AAM operations. The innovations use operational performance data to monitor, detect, and predict flight variations exceeding safe nominal patterns, such as would be caused by navigational error, severe weather complications, or hijacking of UAS controls. These innovative approaches have high potential to prevent accidents and incidents in the new AAM era. It is anticipated that elements of the innovations will evolve into SFCs for the IASMS. Voluntary safety reports can be monitored to identify anomalies related to design or operational performance risks. Reports could be periodically monitored and assessed for specific topics. Reports might serve as weak signals or precursors indicative of emergent risk such as when combined with other safety information. The architecture could include SFCs that are based on voluntary safety reports recognizing the periodic temporal nature of data analysis. As previously mentioned, aviation accidents with their causal and contributing precursors can inform the need for SFCs in the IASMS. Accidents and incidents at San Francisco International Airport such as Asiana 214 and Air Canada 759 illustrate how combinations of different factors lead to increased risk. These types of precursors and different factors have implications on the types of SFCs that could be needed to monitor and manage different sources and types of design and operational risk. Continuing to assure the safety of AAM as designs and operations gain in complexity can be accompanied by defining SFCs that also increase in complexity. These SFCs can leverage information from findings and recommendations synthesized across on-going research, voluntary safety reports, and accident and incident reports. These SFCs can serve to refine accuracy of algorithms and resolve limitations with current practices. The IASMS architecture represents the framework for the SFCs and their critical role in safety assurance.

In-Time Aviation Safety Management System↗

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE)

NASA is planning to return to the Moon in the mid-2020s as a stepping stone to Mars missions in the 2030s. Spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), performed on the Moon and Mars will differ in a variety of ways from those that have been performed in decades past. NASA has identified multiple risks to human health and performance associated with a crewed mission to Mars, especially those associated with exploration EVAs which are expected to be a primary mission activity. Crew may be expected to conduct up to 24 hours of EVA per person per week, where the likelihood of injury and/or mental mistakes are increased compared to ground-based training or current microgravity EVAs and the consequences of which can be catastrophic. Current test environments for exploration EVA research and technology development are large, costly facilities that are limited in their availability or capabilities. Spacesuit testing in a reduced gravity environment such as NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, while a good representation of the crew’s physical workload during exploration EVAs, typically has small datasets and is difficult to integrate physiological sensors or other types of crew performance measures. Meanwhile, scientific field-based testing such as NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies offers an operationally relevant environment for exploration EVAs, particularly for cognitive workload, but is also limited by small datasets, lack of a pressurized spacesuit, and obtrusive measures. The limitations of current analogs for exploration EVAs identify a need for a new test environment that can approximate both the physical and cognitive demands associated with exploration EVAs to enable rapid, controlled, and repeatable evaluations of human health and performance risks of exploration missions. In response, the Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center has developed a hybrid reality exploration EVA analog named the Assessments of Physiology And Cognition in Hybrid-reality Environments (APACHE) to address these limitations using a combination of virtual, physical, and hybrid reality techniques. The APACHE facility resides at NASA Johnson Space Center and serves as a large “sandbox” for EVA research and simulation. At its center is a roughly 15x20ft space surrounded by a 14” tall sandbox partially filled with lunar regolith simulant to emulate the physical feeling of walking on a planetary surface and to allow for simulated geology operations. Nearby, a curved passive treadmill (Skillmill Connect, Technogym, Fairfield, NJ) and an omnidirectional treadmill (Infinadeck, Infinadeck, Rocklin, CA) are included to enable exploration of these large virtual environments while also imposing the physical demands, representative timelines, and cognitive burdens required to navigate and traverse these distances during exploration EVA. A 6DOF motion platform is used to simulate rover operations and supports various human performance evaluations and associated risks. Lastly, APACHE can support two extravehicular (EV) crewmembers working in tandem. A computer workstation is located nearby and also supports an intravehicular (IV) crewmember as part of a full mission simulation. The IV crewmember has direct video and audio communication with the EV crew in VR to provide operational and procedural support. The software used in APACHE was created by the JSC Engineering Directorate, in partnership with Buendea, powered by a custom Unreal Engine 5 (UE5.3, Epic Games) project. APACHE currently utilizes the HTC Vive Pro Eye in a wireless configuration for VR simulations. There are two virtual environments that subjects can explore within APACHE, a Lunar and Martian surface. The virtual Lunar surface was created from LIDAR data of the Lunar South Pole to create roughly 16 sq km of explorable terrain. The virtual Martian surface contains roughly 400 sq km of explorable terrain derived from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter LIDAR data of the Jezero Crater. The immersion and related cognitive burdens of conducting a planetary EVA is simulated through a series of EVA-relevant tasks performed in the VR environment, using these high-fidelity visual representations. Additionally, APACHE includes biosensor driven informatics, such as real-time heart rate monitoring and/or derived values from model simulations, for active monitoring by the EV crew and added cognitive demand. A “Wizard of Oz” control panel enables test operators to activate contingency events such as simulated spacesuit malfunctions, loss of communications, and/or limited visibility. Embedded performance measures such as accuracy, completeness, and execution time have been developed for various exploration tasks to objectively quantify crew performance during an EVA and compare impacts to performance when different environmental stressors, both physical and cognitive, are added to or removed from the simulation. Additionally, validated cognitive and operational performance measures such as the Digit Symbol Substitution Task have been recreated and embedded in VR for direct and relatively unobtrusive measurement of motor perception. The APACHE environment currently supports multiple research studies at NASA. Examples include the CHAPEA project, a series of simulated year-long missions on Mars by a 4-person crew; and the CO2 Contingency Walk Back Study, an investigation of elevated CO2 exposure on crew performance during a contingency EVA scenario. APACHE also provides a test environment to support the development of the Crew State and Risk Model, which is a collection of individualized, mathematical models of crew physical and cognitive state; and the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support system, an operational tool for flight controllers, and eventually a self-reliant Martian crew, to make biomedically-informed decisions in real-time to optimize the EVA planning and execution with respect to crew health and performance. Some technical challenges associated with developing the APACHE environment, as well as current limitations, include VR limitless natural walking with a hybrid spacesuit simulator, optimizing performance for wireless PC VR streaming while maintaining a high degree of visual fidelity, and the integration of various physiological (metabolic masks) and psychometric (eye tracking) sensors with the VR headset.

Human Performance↗

The Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT) Field: A New Lunar Surface Planetary Analog Facility at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)

Introduction: NASA is moving toward a new age of exploration and resource utilization of the lunar surface. Challenges related to exploration, resource utilization, and construction at the Lunar South Pole will require advanced technology and well-designed mission concepts and operations. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has added new capabilities to support surface mobility and construction activities to meet industry, academia, and NASA research and development goals for lunar applications. The Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT) field is a new, large-area, lunar regolith simulant planetary analog testing ground for users interested in surface mobility and lunar construction activities. The LRT complements NASA MSFC’s other lunar environment testing facilities such as the Lunar Surface Simulator (V20 dirty vacuum chamber), the Lunar Environment Testing System (LETS), among many others. Lunar Regolith Terrain (LTR) Description: The Lunar Regolith Terrain field is an outdoor planetary analog environment facility located on base at MSFC. The lunar regolith simulant is JSC-1A feedstock material (volcanic cinder sand sourced from Meriam Crater, Flagstaff, AZ). The field contains more than 500 tons of lunar regolith simulant confined within a 125 ft x 125 ft (38 m x 38 m) area. The field is placed ~ 50% over paved parking lot and ~ 50% over a natural ground. Currently, the depth of regolith ranges between ~ 5 in - ~ 4 ft (~ 13cm – 1.2m) but can be modified to suit user needs. The lunar regolith simulant that makes up the field has representative geotechnical, geochemical, and optical properties of lunar mare basalt. An area within the LRT of lunar highlands terrain simulant is planned. Additional Features of the LRT: The LRT was designed to allow rapid modification of the terrain’s topography obstacles in the field. The terrain can be reshaped to suit specific testing requirements that may require flat expanses, steep hills, or heavily cratered and rocky landscapes. Large rocky obstacles in Fig. 1 are artificial landscape boulders (faux-rocks) that can be easily placed by users or removed entirely. Areas of the field also contain buried fiducials, large sheets, bar stock, and pipes of various composition and dimensions to allow for possible ground penetrating radar and shallow seismic studies. Rapid modification capabilities will also allow for burial of additional user-specific materials to enable in-situ resource utilization detection (e.g., burial of hydrogen sources for neutron detection or other materials). The field is also equipped with on-site office space with an air-conditioned and heated trailer with 120/240V power and lighting. The site has Wi-Fi and Cellular signal coverage. Direct radio frequency communication with the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) is in development. Additional on-site workspace and secure equipment storage is available in adjacent buildings. Accessibility to the field is straightforward with on-site parking and access for delivery of instruments, payloads, and additional equipment. Community Availability: The LRTF provides an accessible planetary analog surface environment for surface mobility testing, autonomous roving operations, developing advanced navigation techniques and operations development. Interested parties can contact the abstract authors for additional details, tours, and scheduling.

Lunar Regolith↗

Marshall Space Flight Center: Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT)

Introduction: NASA is moving toward a new age of exploration and resource utilization of the lunar surface. Challenges related to exploration, resource utilization, and construction at the Lunar South Pole will require advanced technology and well-designed mission concepts and operations. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has added new capabilities to support surface mobility and construction activities to meet industry, academia, and NASA research and development goals for lunar applications. The Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT) field is a new, large-area, lunar regolith simulant planetary analog testing ground for users interested in surface mobility and lunar construction activities. The LRT complements NASA MSFC’s other lunar environment testing facilities such as the Lunar Surface Simulator (V20 dirty vacuum chamber), the Lunar Environment Testing System (LETS), among many others. Lunar Regolith Terrain (LTR) Description: The Lunar Regolith Terrain field is an outdoor planetary analog environment facility located on base at MSFC. The lunar regolith simulant is JSC-1A feedstock material (volcanic cinder sand sourced from Meriam Crater, Flagstaff, AZ). The field contains more than 500 tons of lunar regolith simulant confined within a 125 ft x 125 ft (38 m x 38 m) area. The field is placed ~ 50% over paved parking lot and ~ 50% over a natural ground. Currently, the depth of regolith ranges between ~ 5 in - ~ 4 ft (~ 13cm – 1.2m) but can be modified to suit user needs. The lunar regolith simulant that makes up the field has representative geotechnical, geochemical, and optical properties of lunar mare basalt. An area within the LRT of lunar highlands terrain simulant is planned. Additional Features of the LRT: The LRT was designed to allow rapid modification of the terrain’s topography obstacles in the field. The terrain can be reshaped to suit specific testing requirements that may require flat expanses, steep hills, or heavily cratered and rocky landscapes. Large rocky obstacles in Fig. 1 are artificial landscape boulders (faux-rocks) that can be easily placed by users or removed entirely. Areas of the field also contain buried fiducials, large sheets, bar stock, and pipes of various composition and dimensions to allow for possible ground penetrating radar and shallow seismic studies. Rapid modification capabilities will also allow for burial of additional user-specific materials to enable in-situ resource utilization detection (e.g., burial of hydrogen sources for neutron detection or other materials). The field is also equipped with on-site office space with an air-conditioned and heated trailer with 120/240V power and lighting. The site has Wi-Fi and Cellular signal coverage. Direct radio frequency communication with the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) is in development. Additional on-site workspace and secure equipment storage is available in adjacent buildings. Accessibility to the field is straightforward with on-site parking and access for delivery of instruments, payloads, and additional equipment. Community Availability: The LRTF provides an accessible planetary analog surface environment for surface mobility testing, autonomous roving operations, developing advanced navigation techniques and operations development. Interested parties can contact the abstract authors for additional details, tours, and scheduling.

Lunar Regolith↗

Marshall Space Flight Center: Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT)

Introduction: NASA is moving toward a new age of exploration and resource utilization of the lunar surface. Challenges related to exploration, resource utilization, and construction at the Lunar South Pole will require advanced technology and well-designed mission concepts and operations. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has added new capabilities to support surface mobility and construction activities to meet industry, academia, and NASA research and development goals for lunar applications. The Lunar Regolith Terrain (LRT) field is a new, large-area, lunar regolith simulant planetary analog testing ground for users interested in surface mobility and lunar construction activities. The LRT complements NASA MSFC’s other lunar environment testing facilities such as the Lunar Surface Simulator (V20 dirty vacuum chamber), the Lunar Environment Testing System (LETS), among many others. Lunar Regolith Terrain (LTR) Description: The Lunar Regolith Terrain field is an outdoor planetary analog environment facility located on base at MSFC. The lunar regolith simulant is JSC-1A feedstock material (volcanic cinder sand sourced from Meriam Crater, Flagstaff, AZ). The field contains more than 500 tons of lunar regolith simulant confined within a 125 ft x 125 ft (38 m x 38 m) area. The field is placed ~ 50% over paved parking lot and ~ 50% over a natural ground. Currently, the depth of regolith ranges between ~ 5 in - ~ 4 ft (~ 13cm – 1.2m) but can be modified to suit user needs. The lunar regolith simulant that makes up the field has representative geotechnical, geochemical, and optical properties of lunar mare basalt. An area within the LRT of lunar highlands terrain simulant is planned. Additional Features of the LRT: The LRT was designed to allow rapid modification of the terrain’s topography obstacles in the field. The terrain can be reshaped to suit specific testing requirements that may require flat expanses, steep hills, or heavily cratered and rocky landscapes. Large rocky obstacles in Fig. 1 are artificial landscape boulders (faux-rocks) that can be easily placed by users or removed entirely. Areas of the field also contain buried fiducials, large sheets, bar stock, and pipes of various composition and dimensions to allow for possible ground penetrating radar and shallow seismic studies. Rapid modification capabilities will also allow for burial of additional user-specific materials to enable in-situ resource utilization detection (e.g., burial of hydrogen sources for neutron detection or other materials). The field is also equipped with on-site office space with an air-conditioned and heated trailer with 120/240V power and lighting. The site has Wi-Fi and Cellular signal coverage. Direct radio frequency communication with the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) is in development. Additional on-site workspace and secure equipment storage is available in adjacent buildings. Accessibility to the field is straightforward with on-site parking and access for delivery of instruments, payloads, and additional equipment. Community Availability: The LRTF provides an accessible planetary analog surface environment for surface mobility testing, autonomous roving operations, developing advanced navigation techniques and operations development. Interested parties can contact the abstract authors for additional details, tours, and scheduling.

Lunar Regolith↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗