Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “MISSIONS”

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 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗
NASA NTRS2024

Quantifying Medical Risk on a Long Duration Lunar Mission: A Demonstration of NASA’s IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

Background NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. The distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the medical evacuation of astronauts. Mass, volume, power, and data will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crew to manage medical care. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy lays out increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human medical risk to inform a traditional heuristic approach to medical risk. Prior tools have been developed for missions in low Earth orbit, but a new tool is required to plan for future exploration missions. Methods IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a risk assessment tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design by quantitatively estimating mission medical risk. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; the addition of medical resources; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to represent a sustained exploration Artemis mission. Results/Discussion Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimized medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to overall medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma conditions, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions. This systematic analysis demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Missions to Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VALENTInE: A Concept for a New Frontiers Class Long Duration In-Situ Balloon Mission to Venus

Venus and Earth are similar in bulk composition, size, density, and approximate distance from the Sun, yet Venus’s modern-day climate and surface geology is distinctly different [1]. Previous missions to Venus revealed unusual volcanic features, possible continental crust, widespread volcanic plains, a weak magnetic field [2], and insights into the Venusian atmosphere [3,4]. Unfortunately, data from these missions were limited in spatial and temporal resolution and global extent. A future mission to Venus is critical to address fundamental questions surrounding the chemical composition and dynamics of the Venusian atmosphere [5], its geologic history [6,7], its internal structure [8,9], and its habitability throughout time [10,11]. We present the Venus Air and Land Expedition: a Novel Trailblazer for In situ Exploration (VALENTInE) mission to meet this need. VALENTInE is a variable altitude balloon that will passively float in Venus’s atmosphere between 45 and 55 km altitude. VALENTInE will acquire atmospheric data at varying latitudes and longitudes in addition to mapping the surface geomorphology and mineralogy across multiple terrains. Mission Objectives: The VALENTInE mission concept is driven by four main science objectives: 1. Determine whether the driving force of the superrotation of Venus’s atmosphere is caused by horizontal or vertical momentum transport. 2. Determine whether the atmospheric composition and noble gas inventory of the Venusian atmosphere is a product of outgassing from the initial protoplanetary source or if there are significant contributions from exogenic sources. 3. Determine whether the tesserae regions (particularly Aphrodite Terra) are felsic and relatively older than surrounding regions. 4. Determine if there is any evidence of a recent dynamo preserved in the rock record of Venus. Mission Overview: A balloon architecture provides a robust system that can survive long-term in the Venusian environment while taking accurate measurements of the lower cloud deck and surface. Two prior balloon missions to Venus, VEGA 1 and VEGA 2 in 1984, have demonstrated the potential for such planetary exploration; however, these missions were short-lived (46 hr), with limited range (54 km). Our spacecraft concept consists of a battery powered balloon with a gondola and flyby carrier stage (Fig. 1). Our novel design allows for at least 15 days of atmospheric exploration, including multiple ascents and descents in the Venus atmosphere. VALENTInE is baselined to launch in 2032, cruise on solar power for 128 days, enter, descend, and inflate (EDI) into Venus’s atmosphere above Aphrodite Terra, and float in Venus’s atmosphere for a total nominal mission duration of 15 days. The balloon, able to control its altitude by changing its buoyancy, will make one full circumnavigation every 4–8 days and move poleward ~1 o latitude per day; it will be passively directed by the horizontal air currents on Venus. The balloon can only be controlled in the z direction, and the expected latitude range is ±10° from EDI. The balloon itself will be a tracer for atmospheric structures such as zonal winds [5, 12]. During the 15-day operational period, there will be five dips to 45 km for a compositional study of the lower atmosphere and geological and magnetic mapping of the surface. Dips are used to take images and measurements closer to the surface and to obtain in situ vertical atmospheric profiles between 45 and 55 km. Instruments: The VALENTInE instrument payload will allow for extensive study of the geology, atmosphere, and interior of Venus. The instrument suite consists of six instruments. The mission profile for each instrument is shown in Fig. 2. Lower Atmosphere Meteorology Analyzer (LAMA) is an atmospheric structure instrument consisting of a thermometer, barometer, and accelerometer to continuously measure temperature and pressure as a function of altitude, longitude, and latitude. TracE and Noble Gas Investigator (TENGI) is aneutral mass spectrometer used to sample the dense atmosphere. TENGI will operate continuously at 45 km and 55 km and will measure D/H ratios, as well as Ne, Ar, and O isotopic ratios. Kilometer Scale Spectral Imager (KSSI) is amultispectral imager (850-1150 nm) used to resolve surface features on the order of km. Near InfraRed Multispectral Photometer (NIRMP) is an Infrared (IR) photometer used to image the surface through the clouds to characterize mineral assemblages at five different areas of the surface. NIRMP will be operated during dwell. ELevation REConnaissance (ELREC) is a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) instrument used for measuring topography at five different areas of the surface. The ELREC data will be combined with those of NIRMP to determine mineral assemblages and how they correlate to topography. Magnetic Exploration and Interior Detective (MEID) is a magnetometer used to detect any near-surface magnetic anomalies. The magnetometer will continuously operate at all altitudes. Mission Design: The spacecraft’s propulsion system will have a wet mass of 930 kg and will be launched on an Atlas V rocket. The spacecraft will jettison the payload upon arrival in Venus’s atmosphere before decelerating to orbital velocity. Figure 2. Notional power-dip profile while the balloon is on the dayside. Risks and Challenges: Raising and lowering the spacecraft to dip beneath the haze layer require a large amount of energy. This issue was partly compensated by limiting the number of dips over the 15 day prime mission. Power needs for pumping helium are reduced by slowing the descent speed, which consequently increases spatial resolution of in situ measurements between 45 and 55 km. The main limitation for the duration of the mission is the need to carry 15 days’ worth of batteries. The bus experiences external Venusian temperatures ranging from ~27°C at 55 km altitude to ~110°C at 45 km altitude. These high atmospheric temperatures require thermal protection for the bus (instruments, electronics, and flight systems) during its descent, dwell at 45 km, and ascent. The bus is maintained at a mechanically safe temperature range of -10°C to 50°C using white external paint, multi-layer insulation (MLI), mechanical/thermal isolation (e.g. Ti, composites), and ~57 kg of Phase Change Materials (PCM). Images and spectra taken below the haze dominate the available data transmission regardless of the time spent at 45 km. Therefore, less time at the lower altitude mainly reduces the coverage of in situ measurements there. Further, we assumed an unrealistically low-density material for the helium storage tanks on the gondola. However, this issue is partially resolved if we were to jettison 75% of the spent helium storage tanks. After the entry process, the balloon volume remains mostly inflated and storage tanks are required only for reducing balloon volume in dipping to 45 km. This mission was planned against an expected New Frontiers 5 (NF5) cost cap of $1B, as the NF5 call had not yet been released. The mission we describe fits within the predicted cost cap if the flyby carrier stage, responsible for powering the spacecraft during cruise and for relaying in situ measurements back to Earth, can be contributed by another space agency. Acknowledgments: We thank the JPL Planetary Science Summer School, especially A. Nash, J. Scully, K. Mitchell, L. Lowes, and J. Armijo, and our mentors from JPL Team X. Thank you to our review panel for their insightful review. References: [1] Kane, S. et al. (2019) JGR:Ps, 124 , 2015–2028. [2] Phillips, J. L., & Russell, C. T. (1987). JGR: Space Physics , 92 (A3), 2253-2263. [3] Nakamura, M. et al. (2018) Earth Planets Space, 70 (1), 144. [4] Svedhem, H. et al. (2009) JGR:P 114 (E5). [5] Limaye et al. (2009) Decadal Survey White Paper . [6] Ivanov, M. and Head, J. (2011) PSS, 59 (13) , 1559-1600. [7] Smrekar, S. et al. (2018) Space Sci Rev, 214 (5), 88. [8] O’Rourke, J. et al. (2018) EPSL, 502 , 46-56. [9] O’Rourke J. et al. (2019) GRL , (46), 5768–5777 [10] Way, M. et al. (2016) GRL, 43 (16), 8376-8383. [11] Way, M. et al. (2020) JGR:P, 125 (5), e2019JE006276. [12] Preston, R. A. et al. (1986) Science, 231 (4744), 1414-1416.

Mission Concept↗
NASA NTRS1973

Representative Space Shuttle missions and their impact on shuttle design.

Four representative Space Shuttle missions for the 1980's are described: mission 1, a third stage deployment and retrieval mission; mission 2, a combination orbiting element revisit and sortie mission; mission 3, a rapid payload retrieval and return mission; and mission 4, a 30-day earth observation sortie mission. The first three missions are proposed baseline reference missions, and, as such, their mission requirements must be met by the baseline shuttle configuration developed by NASA contractors. Typically, these missions impact the design in terms of such basics as shuttle launch payload capability, payload bay size, performance of the orbital maneuvering system (OMS) and the reaction control system (RCS), the basic 7-day orbital system lifetime, and the thermal protection system for high cross-range entry. To illustrate that vehicle design may be subject to requirements from other mission types as well, mission 4 is included. Each description stresses mission requirements having unique impact on vehicle design.

Young, K. A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Middleware Evaluation and Benchmarking for Use in Mission Operations Centers

Middleware technologies have been promoted as timesaving, cost-cutting alternatives to the point-to-point communication used in traditional mission operations systems. However, missions have been slow to adopt the new technology. The lack of existing middleware-based missions has given rise to uncertainty about middleware's ability to perform in an operational setting. Most mission architects are also unfamiliar with the technology and do not know the benefits and detriments to architectural choices - or even what choices are available. We will present the findings of a study that evaluated several middleware options specifically for use in a mission operations system. We will address some common misconceptions regarding the applicability of middleware-based architectures, and we will identify the design decisions and tradeoffs that must be made when choosing a middleware solution. The Middleware Comparison and Benchmark Study was conducted at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center to comprehensively evaluate candidate middleware products, compare and contrast the performance of middleware solutions with the traditional point- to-point socket approach, and assess data delivery and reliability strategies. The study focused on requirements of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, validating the potential use of middleware in the GPM mission ground system. The study was jointly funded by GPM and the Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center (GMSEC), a virtual organization for providing mission enabling solutions and promoting the use of appropriate new technologies for mission support. The study was broken into two phases. To perform the generic middleware benchmarking and performance analysis, a network was created with data producers and consumers passing data between themselves. The benchmark monitored the delay, throughput, and reliability of the data as the characteristics were changed. Measurements were taken under a variety of topologies, data demands, and data characteristics, using several middleware products. All results were compared to systems using traditional point-to-point socket communication. By comparing performance results under Merent settings, inferences could be made about each middleware's ability to meet certain requirements of the GPM mission. The second phase simulated a middleware-based mission operations center. Actual mission support tools were either used or simulated to create real world demands on the middleware. Network and computer demands were watched closely to verify that no specific idiosyncrasies of mission operations activities would prove unsupportable by the middleware. In our presentation, we will address some commonly accepted misconceptions concerning middleware in mission support architectures. Specifically, we will focus on the perception that middleware solutions are too slow or impose too much overhead for real-time mission operations, and that middleware solutions are too expensive for small

Antonucci, Rob↗
NASA NTRS2015

Robotic Reconnaissance Missions to Small Bodies and Their Potential Contributions to Human Exploration

Introduction: Robotic reconnaissance missions to small bodies will directly address aspects of NASA's Asteroid Initiative and will contribute to future human exploration. The NASA Asteroid Initiative is comprised of two major components: the Grand Challenge and the Asteroid Mission. The first component, the Grand Challenge, focuses on protecting Earth's population from asteroid impacts by detecting potentially hazardous objects with enough warning time to either prevent them from impacting the planet, or to implement civil defense procedures. The Asteroid Mission involves sending astronauts to study and sample a near- Earth asteroid (NEA) prior to conducting exploration missions of the Martian system, which includes Phobos and Deimos. The science and technical data obtained from robotic precursor missions that investigate the surface and interior physical characteristics of an object will help identify the pertinent physical properties that will maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk for both robotic assets and crew operating in close proximity to, or at the surface of, a small body. These data will help fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps (SKGs) concerning asteroid physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration considerations at similar small body destinations. Small Body Strategic Knowledge Gaps: For the past several years NASA has been interested in identifying the key SKGs related to future human destinations. These SKGs highlight the various unknowns and/or data gaps of targets that the science and engineering communities would like to have filled in prior to committing crews to explore the Solar System. An action team from the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) was formed specifically to identify the small body SKGs under the direction of the Human Exploration and Operations Missions Directorate (HEOMD), given NASA's recent interest in NEAs and the Martian moons as potential human destinations [1]. The action team organized the SKGs into four broad themes: 1) Identify human mission targets; 2) Understand how to work on and interact with the small body surface; 3) Understand the small body environment and its potential risk/benefit to crew, systems, and operational assets; and 4) Understand the small body resource potential. Each of these themes were then further subdivided into categories to address specific SKG issues. Robotic Precursor Contributions to SKGs: Robotic reconnaissance missions should be able to address specific aspects related to SKG themes 1 through 4. Theme 1 deals with the identification of human mission targets within the NEA population. The current guideline indicates that human missions to fastspinning, tumbling, or binary asteroids may be too risky to conduct successfully from an operational perspective. However, no spacecraft mission has been to any of these types of NEAs before. Theme 2 addresses the concerns about interacting on the small body surface under microgravity conditions, and how the surface and/or sub-surface properties affect or restrict the interaction for human exploration. The combination of remote sensing instruments and in situ payloads will provide good insight into the asteroid's surface and subsurface properties. SKG theme 3 deals with the environment in and around the small body that may present a nuisance or hazard to any assets operating in close proximity. Impact and surface experiments will help address issues related to particle size, particle longevity, internal structure, and the near-surface mechanical stability of the asteroid. Understanding or constraining these physical characteristics are important for mission planning. Theme 4 addresses the resource potential of the small body. This is a particularly important aspect of human exploration since the identification and utilization of resources is a key aspect for deep space mission architectures to the Martian system (i.e., Phobos and Deimos). Conclusions: Robotic reconnaissance of small bodies can provide a wealth of information relevant to the science and planetary defense of NEAs. However, such missions to investigate NEAs can also provide key insights into small body strategic knowledge gaps and contribute to the overall success for human exploration missions to asteroids.

Abell, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

MarCO: Interplanetary Mission Development on a CubeSat Scale

Shortly after JPL’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission launches, separates, and commences its cruise phase, two CubeSats will deploy from the launch vehicle’s upper stage and begin independent flight to Mars (Fig. 1). During InSight’s entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence, these twin Mars Cube One (MarCO) spacecraft will fly 3,500 km above the Martian surface, recording and relaying InSight UHF radio data to the Deep Space Network (DSN) on Earth1. MarCO is a twin CubeSat mission developed by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to accompany the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) Mars mission lander. MarCO's primary mission objective is to launch with InSight and independently fly to Mars to serve as a communications relay during InSight's entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phase. MarCO represents a new type of deep space mission: CubeSats at Mars. Building on the development of JPL's first interplanetary CubeSat project, the Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment (INSPIRE), MarCO further refined the approach to hardware, software, and ground architecture development to solve the challenges of quickly building low-budget spacecraft to fly to Mars. The greatest constraint, beyond others typical of CubeSat missions, was time. The duration between MarCO's conception to completion of spacecraft assembly was less than two years - an unprecedented schedule for any planetary mission to date. Through necessity, MarCO has built on previous experience, procedures, systems, and development methodologies, defining a new niche for supporting larger primary missions. The MarCO spacecraft are poised to write a new chapter in deep space exploration. Originally slated to launch and reach Mars in 2016, the InSight mission schedule subsequently slipped to 2018. During the original landing of InSight, Earth would not be in view, and no orbiter around Mars would have been in position to both receive UHF EDL data and simultaneously relay it back to Earth. It was from this obstacle that MarCO was conceived. Regardless of any changes to InSight’s 2018 EDL configuration geometry, MarCO is still expected to fly and serve in the same capacity as originally designed: the first CubeSat mission to Mars. CubeSats have historically been firmly in the domain of universities and small companies. As first conceived, they served as a platform upon which to teach all aspects of the space mission lifecycle. JPL took on this mission type with Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment2 (INSPIRE), moving the concept into a new domain: deep space. Building from the INSPIRE platform and lessons learned, MarCO addressed new challenges in the domain of planetary missions: independent interplanetary flight and navigation, integration with a large-scale mission, long-distance and long-delay communication, short development time, and a small development team. Of these, the greatest constraint was schedule: only 18 months passed from conception of mission concept until delivery of fully assembled and tested flight hardware. Careful selection of mission team, along with extensive use of off-the-shelf equipment, and streamlining automated processes, was essential. This achievement represents the next step in the evolution of CubeSats beyond low-Earth orbit.

Werne, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2022

Ideas on the NASA Senior Review and Mission Extension Process

Extended mission budgets fund a significant part of our community, particularly young scientists who in a relatively short time are exposed to a broad range of experiences and opportunities available in space science and other STEM fields. In particular, mission-funded science offers a relatively stable funding stream that enables meaningful mentoring efforts and interactions, including apprenticeships ranging from project management, to mission operations, to data processing and analysis, to hardware and software development, to STEM-related education and outreach. It moreover provides professional contacts that fuel diversity in mission leadership and in the science and technical workforce at-large. Last but not least, it sustains the scientific productivity of NASA’s missions, which constitute major national investments meriting their full exploitation. Budgets cuts, however, are exercising pressure on the science and operations of the extended mission fleet despite being only a small portion of the overall Division budget. The history of Heliophysics has demonstrated that maintaining the operation of missions beyond their prime phase invariably leads to a much deeper knowledge of the original mission science goals, together with new applications often not foreseen during their original design. Their operation as part of the Heliophysics System Observatory (HSO)---a coordinated, 1eliophysics, multipoint observing system of the heliosphere, is a prime example. Some of the first activities undertaken by the Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter missions required recreating the larger context of their new observations by using the diversity of HSO mission capabilities. The marginal cost of maintaining this valuable, working science resource, in the form of both continuing high quality data access and expertise, is small compared to the cost of the original missions or of new missions to achieve similar objectives, making the operation of extended missions, the best “science per dollar” investment in Heliophysics. We argue that reducing both extended mission operations and science budgets will have a ripple effect across the community, including reducing employment and training opportunities for young scientists, to lowering the quality/impact of the Heliophysics Systems Observatory. Instead, we suggest that the proposal process for mission extension should be re-examined. We offer several ideas for reducing costs of extended missions toward maintaining science output and streamlining the management process.

A. Vourlidas↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA NTRS1994

Shared mission operations concept

Historically, new JPL flight projects have developed a Mission Operations System (MOS) as unique as their spacecraft, and have utilized a mission-dedicated staff to monitor and control the spacecraft through the MOS. NASA budgetary pressures to reduce mission operations costs have led to the development and reliance on multimission ground system capabilities. The use of these multimission capabilities has not eliminated an ongoing requirement for a nucleus of personnel familiar with a given spacecraft and its mission to perform mission-dedicated operations. The high cost of skilled personnel required to support projects with diverse mission objectives has the potential for significant reduction through shared mission operations among mission-compatible projects. Shared mission operations are feasible if: (1) the missions do not conflict with one another in terms of peak activity periods, (2) a unique MOS is not required, and (3) there is sufficient similarity in the mission profiles so that greatly different skills would not be required to support each mission. This paper will further develop this shared mission operations concept. We will illustrate how a Discovery-class mission would enter a 'partner' relationship with the Voyager Project, and can minimize MOS development and operations costs by early and careful consideration of mission operations requirements.

Spradlin, Gary L.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Next Gen NEAR: Near Earth Asteroid Human Robotic Precursor Mission Concept

Asteroids have long held the attention of the planetary science community. In particular, asteroids that evolve into orbits near that of Earth, called near-Earth objects (NEO), are of high interest as potential targets for exploration due to the relative ease (in terms of delta V) to reach them. NASA's Flexible Path calls for missions and experiments to be conducted as intermediate steps towards the eventual goal of human exploration of Mars; piloted missions to NEOs are such example. A human NEO mission is a valuable exploratory step beyond the Earth-Moon system enhancing capabilities that surpass our current experience, while also developing infrastructure for future mars exploration capabilities. To prepare for a human rendezvous with an NEO, NASA is interested in pursuing a responsible program of robotic NEO precursor missions. Next Gen NEAR is such a mission, building on the NEAR Shoemaker mission experience at the JHU/APL Space Department, to provide an affordable, low risk solution with quick data return. Next Gen NEAR proposes to make measurements needed for human exploration to asteroids: to demonstrate proximity operations, to quantify hazards for human exploration and to characterize an environment at a near-Earth asteroid representative of those that may be future human destinations. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has demonstrated exploration-driven mission feasibility by developing a versatile spacecraft design concept using conventional technologies that satisfies a set of science, exploration and mission objectives defined by a concept development team in the summer of 2010. We will describe the mission concept and spacecraft architecture in detail. Configuration options were compared with the mission goals and objectives in order to select the spacecraft design concept that provides the lowest cost, lowest implementation risk, simplest operation and the most benefit for the mission implementation. The Next Gen NEAR spacecraft was designed to support rendezvous with a range of candidate asteroid targets and could easily be launched with one of several NASA launch vehicles. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle supports a Next Gen NEAR launch to target many near-Earth asteroids under consideration that could be reached with a C3 of 18 km2/sec2 or less, and the Atlas V-401 provides added capability supporting launch to NEAs that require more lift capacity while at the same time providing such excess lift capability that another payload of opportunity could be launch in conjunction with Next Gen NEAR. Next Gen NEAR will measure and interact with the target surface in ways never undertaken at an asteroid, and will prepare for first human precursor mission by demonstrating exploration science operations at an accessible NEO. This flexible mission and spacecraft design concept supports target selection based on upcoming Earth-based observations and also provides opportunities for co-manifest & international partnerships. JHU/APL has demonstrated low cost, low risk, high impact missions and this mission will help to prepare NASA for human NEO exploration by combining the best of NASA s human and robotic exploration capabilities.

Rivkin, Andrew S.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Mars Sample Return Using Commercial Capabilities: Mission Architecture Overview

Mars Sample Return (MSR) is the highest priority science mission for the next decade as recommended by the recent Decadal Survey of Planetary Science. This paper presents an overview of a feasibility study for a MSR mission. The objective of the study was to determine whether emerging commercial capabilities can be used to reduce the number of mission systems and launches required to return the samples, with the goal of reducing mission cost. The major element required for the MSR mission are described and include an integration of the emerging commercial capabilities with small spacecraft design techniques; new utilizations of traditional aerospace technologies; and recent technological developments. We report the feasibility of a complete and closed MSR mission design using the following scenario that covers three synodic launch opportunities, beginning with the 2022 opportunity: A Falcon Heavy injects a SpaceX Red Dragon capsule and trunk onto a Trans Mars Injection (TMI) trajectory. The capsule is modified to carry all the hardware needed to return samples collected on Mars including a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV); an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV); and hardware to transfer a sample collected in a previously landed rover mission to the ERV. The Red Dragon descends to land on the surface of Mars using Supersonic Retro Propulsion (SRP). After previously collected samples are transferred to the ERV, the single-stage MAV launches the ERV from the surface of Mars to a Mars phasing orbit. The MAV uses a storable liquid, pump fed bi-propellant propulsion system. After a brief phasing period, the ERV, which also uses a storable bi-propellant system, performs a Trans Earth Injection (TEI) burn. Once near Earth the ERV performs Earth and lunar swing-bys and is placed into a Lunar Trailing Orbit (LTO0 - an Earth orbit, at lunar distance. A later mission, using a Dragon and launched by a Falcon Heavy, performs a rendezvous with the ERV in the lunar trailing orbit, retrieves the sample container and breaks the chain of contact with Mars by transferring the sample into a sterile and secure container. With the sample contained, the retrieving spacecraft, makes a controlled Earth re-entry preventing any unintended release of pristine Martian materials into the Earth's biosphere. Other capsule type vehicles and associated launchers may be applicable. The analysis methods employed standard and specialized aerospace engineering tools. Mission system elements were analyzed with either direct techniques or by using parametric mass estimating relationships (MERs). The architecture was iterated until overall mission convergence was achieved on at least one path. Subsystems analyzed in this study include support structures, power system, nose fairing, thermal insulation, actuation devices, MAV exhaust venting, and GN&C. Best practice application of loads, mass growth contingencies, and resource margins were used. For Falcon Heavy capabilities and Dragon subsystems we utilized publically available data from SpaceX; published analyses from other sources; as well as our own engineering and aerodynamic estimates. Earth Launch mass is under 11 mt, which is within the estimated capability of a Falcon Heavy, with margin. Total entry masses between 7 and 10 mt were considered with closure occurring between 9 and 10 mt. Propellant mass fractions for each major phase of the EDL - Entry, Terminal Descent, and Hazard Avoidance - have been derived. An assessment of the entry conditions on the thermal protection system (TPS), currently in use for Dragon missions, has been made. And shows no significant stressors. A useful mass of 2.0 mt is provided and includes mass growth allowances for the MAV, the ERV, and mission unique equipment. We also report on alternate propellant options for the MAV and options for the ERV, including propulsion systems; crewed versus robotic retrieval mission; as well as direct Earth entry. International Planetary Protection Policies as well as verifiable means of compliance will have a large impact on any MSR mission design. We identify areas within our architecture where such impacts occur. This work shows that emerging commercial capabilities can be used to effectively integrated into a mission to achieve an important planetary science objective.

Mars Sample Return↗
NASA NTRS2008

Preparing Cassini Uplink Operations for Extended Mission

The Cassini-Huygens Mission to Saturn and Titan, a joint venture between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency, is conducting a four-year, prime mission exploring the Saturnian system, including its atmosphere, rings, magnetosphere, moons and icy satellites. Launched in 1997, Cassini began its prime mission in 2004. Cassini is now preparing for a new era, a two-year extended mission to revisit many of the highlights and new discoveries made during the prime mission. Because of the light time delay from Earth to Saturn, and the time needed to coordinate the complicated science and engineering activities that take place on the spacecraft, commanding on Cassini is done in approximately 40-day intervals known as sequences. The Cassini Uplink Operations team is responsible for the final development and validation of the pointing profile and instrument and spacecraft commands that are contained in a sequence. During this final analysis prior to uplink to the spacecraft, thorough and exact evaluation is necessary to ensure there are no mistakes during commanding. In order to perform this evaluation, complete and refined processes and procedures are fundamental. The Uplink Operations team is also responsible for anomaly response during sequence execution, a process in which critical decisions often are made in real-time. Recent anomalies on other spacecraft missions have highlighted two major risks in the operations process: (1) personnel turnover and the retirement of critical knowledge and (2) aging, outdated operations procedures. If other missions are a good barometer, the Cassini extended mission will be presented with a high personnel turnover of the Cassini flight team, which could lead to a loss of expertise that has been essential to the success of the prime mission. In order to prepare the Cassini Uplink Operations Team for this possibility and to continue to develop and operate safe science and engineering sequences, a review and major update of the current documentation and operations procedures was needed. This paper will address the changes made to extended mission sequence generation processes primarily due to new restrictions in spacecraft operating capability and lessons learned from prime mission. In addition, it will address the state of the prime mission operations procedures, the philosophy changes and updates that were made to those procedures in response to process improvement, and the validation of those new procedures through the training of current and new personnel. And lastly, it will address the lessons learned throughout prime mission and how the Uplink Operations team chose to incorporate those lessons into the working documentation and team knowledge. This incorporation was necessary to facilitate the success of the extended mission with potentially all new personnel at some point prior to the end of the mission.

Maxwell, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Calculation of Operations Efficiency Factors for Mars Surface Missions

The duration of a mission--and subsequently, the minimum spacecraft lifetime--is a key component in designing the capabilities of a spacecraft during mission formulation. However, determining the duration is not simply a function of how long it will take the spacecraft to execute the activities needed to achieve mission objectives. Instead, the effects of the interaction between the spacecraft and ground operators must also be taken into account. This paper describes a method, using "operations efficiency factors", to account for these effects for Mars surface missions. Typically, this level of analysis has not been performed until much later in the mission development cycle, and has not been able to influence mission or spacecraft design. Further, the notion of moving to sustainable operations during Prime Mission--and the effect that change would have on operations productivity and mission objective choices--has not been encountered until the most recent rover missions (MSL, the (now-cancelled) joint NASA-ESA 2018 Mars rover, and the proposed rover for Mars 2020). Since MSL had a single control center and sun-synchronous relay assets (like MER), estimates of productivity derived from MER prime and extended missions were used. However, Mars 2018's anticipated complexity (there would have been control centers in California and Italy, and a non-sun-synchronous relay asset) required the development of an explicit model of operations efficiency that could handle these complexities. In the case of the proposed Mars 2018 mission, the model was employed to assess the mission return of competing operations concepts, and as an input to component lifetime requirements. In this paper we provide examples of how to calculate the operations efficiency factor for a given operational configuration, and how to apply the factors to surface mission scenarios. This model can be applied to future missions to enable early effective trades between operations design, science mission planning, and spacecraft design.

Laubach, Sharon↗
NASA NTRS2017

A New Architecture for Visualization: Open Mission Control Technologies

Open Mission Control Technologies (MCT) is a new architecture for visualisation of mission data. Driven by requirements for new mission capabilities, including distributed mission operations, access to data anywhere, customization by users, synthesis of multiple data sources, and flexibility for multi-mission adaptation, Open MCT provides users with an integrated customizable environment. Developed at NASAs Ames Research Center (ARC), in collaboration with NASAs Advanced Multimission Operations System (AMMOS) and NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Open MCT is getting its first mission use on the Jason 3 Mission, and is also available in the testbed for the Mars 2020 Rover and for development use for NASAs Resource Prospector Lunar Rover. The open source nature of the project provides for use outside of space missions, including open source contributions from a community of users. The defining features of Open MCT for mission users are data integration, end user composition and multiple views. Data integration provides access to mission data across domains in one place, making data such as activities, timelines, telemetry, imagery, event timers and procedures available in one place, without application switching. End user composition provides users with layouts, which act as a canvas to assemble visualisations. Multiple views provide the capability to view the same data in different ways, with live switching of data views in place. Open MCT is browser based, and works on the desktop as well as tablets and phones, providing access to data anywhere. An early use case for mobile data access took place on the Resource Prospector (RP) Mission Distributed Operations Test, in which rover engineers in the field were able to view telemetry on their phones. We envision this capability providing decision support to on console operators from off duty personnel. The plug-in architecture also allows for adaptation for different mission capabilities. Different data types and capabilities may be added or removed using plugins. An API provides a means to write new capabilities and to create data adaptors. Data plugins exist for mission data sources for NASA missions. Adaptors have been written by international and commercial users. Open MCT is open source. Open source enables collaborative development across organizations and also makes the product available outside of the space community, providing a potential source of usage and ideas to drive product design and development. The combination of open source with an Apache 2 license, and distribution on GitHub, has enabled an active community of users and contributors. The spectrum of users for Open MCT is, to our knowledge, unprecedented for mission software. In addition to our NASA users, we have, through open source, had users and inquires on projects ranging from Internet of Things, to radio hobbyists, to farming projects. We have an active community of contributors, enabling a flow of ideas inside and outside of the space community.

Trimble, Jay↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA Utilization of Space Nuclear Systems for Robotic and Human Exploration Missions: Response to EO 13972: Promoting Small Nuclear Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration

Space Nuclear Systems (SNS) technology development offers a wide range of capabilities to support NASA’s current and future missions. Executive Order (EO) 13972, “Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration” [1], issued 5 January 2021, directs NASA to define requirements for NASA utilization of nuclear energy systems for human and robotic exploration missions through 2040 and analyze the costs and benefits of such requirements.” Although it is premature to define requirements and cost for future exploration missions that have not yet been formulated, this report describes planned objectives and missions by 2040 that are enabled or enhanced by nuclear systems while taking into account a number of unique considerations for nuclear energy in the space environment. Nuclear energy systems are enabling for space missions and critical capabilities where conventional forms of energy production are impractical or impossible due to mass constraints, mission duration, or distance from the Sun. Space nuclear technologies available or in development for use by 2040 utilize radioisotope decay or nuclear fission and fall into three categories: heat, power, and propulsion. Current applications utilize radioisotope power systems that provide consistent and reliable performance in the sub-kilowatt power range. More advanced SNS can enable new mission objectives where high energy density solutions are critical, or where access to solar solutions is prohibitive. Higher power radioisotope and fission systems are under development within NASA for a wide variety of human exploration and science mission applications. Planned missions designed to use radioisotope systems include Dragonfly, a rotorcraft that will explore the surface of Titan, and Persephone, a mission concept for a Pluto orbiter. Nuclear fission systems have the key advantage of providing significantly higher power, lower mass solutions from tens to even thousands of kilowatts. Fission power is enabling to a sustained human presence on the Moon and developing a robust lunar economy. Fission propulsion is enabling for missions within and beyond cis-lunar space. This report examines NASA-envisioned mission applications and associated performance needs for SNS over the next twenty years leading to 2040 along with the unique technical considerations posed by space nuclear technology development. This includes engineering and operational logistics for ground handling, thermal management, survival of the space environment, operational safety, power requirements, and service longevity. Safety to the public, the NASA work force, and agency assets remains a top priority for NASA and particular attention is given to this aspect in the design, hardware assembly, ground operation, launch, and mission operation of an SNS. NASA relies on the Department of Energy as nuclear authority and its legacy of rigorous safety procedures as standards for ground development, test, transportation, and launch site operation. The principal concern is preventing unintended radiological release to the public or environment. Radioisotope system experience has established processes, including ground operation, transportation, and launch, that are considered directly applicable to emerging fission systems; however, fission systems have unique design needs that impact the safety and performance requirements. High efficiency power conversion from both fission and radioisotope systems requires high operating temperatures necessitating both passive and active thermal management to maintain safe and nominal operating conditions. Effective cooling and waste heat rejection have special considerations for space applications, whether in zero-g or reduced gravity. Fluid and heat transfer within the reactor system is not anticipated to be impacted by reduced or zero-g environments. Cryogenic working fluids and propellant supplies utilized in some space nuclear applications will need low mass, high capacity cryocoolers to meet the long-term storage and near zero-boiloff needs. Integrated, high power density SNS capable of being packaged in a single vehicle is a key consideration for NASA. Due to concerns for complexity and reliability, in space reactor assembly and reactor refueling are not current design considerations. Expanding into a new era for space exploration depends on mass-efficient, high-energy solutions to power deep-space vehicles, operate in harsh environments, and increase mission flexibility. NASA nuclear technology investments are targeting power for surface operations and propulsion for fast-transit, deep-space missions, all with the ability to reliably operate without the need for repair or refueling. NASA’s goals, enabled by nuclear technologies, provide for exciting advances in scientific objectives and human exploration, ushering in a new space age that enables a human presence on bodies beyond our Earth.

nuclear↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing Mission Segment-Specific Clinical Data for Impact

Space exploration missions represent a significant future objective for NASA’s human spaceflight operations for the near and long term. By operating missions during longer periods and over further distances, NASA’s mission planning models, hardware systems, and medical capabilities will be stretched beyond their original design constraints. The necessity of medical training and medical supply manifesting for such missions is likely to become incredibly intricate as trade-space analysis is performed over varying mission profiles. For this purpose, IMPACT was created to extend and improve the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) which is used for International Space Station (ISS) medical predications and consists of a probabilistic risk assessment tool that simulates missions to calculate risks given the constraints on crew complement, mission duration and activity (such as Extravehicular Activities), power, communication, mass, volume, and evacuation consideration as well as to predict mission outcomes. Currently, the medical evidence used to support IMPACT remains static, addressing risks of a medical condition and the impacts of the condition during spaceflight only, but is only calculated for a small number of mission parameters. Extended missions will consist of new and varied living environments, changing gravitational loads, and dynamic working requirements. Medical risks are not typically constant but will change depending upon the physical and physiological environment of the body during all phases of a mission. Risks are likely to shift during different mission segments, and understanding how components of a mission profile change risks will assist mission planners to increase chances for mission success.

Christopher Zahner↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗