Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1990

A manned maneuvering unit proximity operations planning and flight guidance display and control system

This task concerns the design, development, testing, and evaluation of a new proximity operations planning and flight guidance display and control system for manned space operations. A forecast, derivative manned maneuvering unit (MMU) was identified as a candidate for the application of a color, highway-in-the-sky display format for the presentation of flight guidance information. A silicon graphics 4D/20-based simulation is being developed to design and test display formats and operations concepts. The simulation includes the following: (1) real-time color graphics generation to provide realistic, dynamic flight guidance displays and control characteristics; (2) real-time graphics generation of spacecraft trajectories; (3) MMU flight dynamics and control characteristics; (4) control algorithms for rotational and translational hand controllers; (5) orbital mechanics effects for rendezvous and chase spacecraft; (6) inclusion of appropriate navigation aids; and (7) measurement of subject performance. The flight planning system under development provides for: (1) selection of appropriate operational modes, including minimum cost, optimum cost, minimum time, and specified ETA; (2) automatic calculation of rendezvous trajectories, en route times, and fuel requirements; (3) and provisions for manual override. Man/machine function allocations in planning and en route flight segments are being evaluated. Planning and en route data are presented on one screen composed of two windows: (1) a map display presenting a view perpendicular to the orbital plane, depicting flight planning trajectory and time data attitude display presenting attitude and course data for use en route; and (2) an attitude display presenting local vertical-local horizontal attitude data superimposed on a highway-in-the-sky or flight channel representation of the flight planned course. Both display formats are presented while the MMU is en route. In addition to these displays, several original display elements are being developed, including a 3DOF flight detector for attitude commanding, a different flight detector for translation commands, and a pictorial representation of velocity deviations.

Gershzohn, Gary R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Alternative Architectures for a 2024 Lunar Sortie

This study focused on performing a broad analysis of lunar architectures to identify key alternatives capable of performing a 2024 human lunar landing mission. The goal of the study was to identify architecture alternatives which exhibit robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The study consisted of up to three element architectures which perform the mission from cis-lunar aggregation, through the surface sortie, and return to cis-lunar space. More than 600,000 data points were evaluated utilizing a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC. Key findings from the study indicate that architecture complexity can be reduced by minimizing the number of discrete, unique architecture elements, which in turn translates into reduced design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) complexity. It was identified that heavy lift launch vehicles enable such architectures while also providing significant increases to launch vehicle margin over existing and near-term commercial launch vehicle (CLV) performance expected in the 2024 time frame. Additionally, the study identified storable propellant based lander architectures as leading alternatives in achieving a 2024 human lunar landing by providing reduced technology needs and development schedules.

Architecture Analysis↗
NASA NTRS2010

SMART: The Future of Spaceflight Avionics

A novel avionics approach is necessary to meet the future needs of low cost space and lunar missions that require low mass and low power electronics. The current state of the art for avionics systems are centralized electronic units that perform the required spacecraft functions. These electronic units are usually custom-designed for each application and the approach compels avionics designers to have in-depth system knowledge before design can commence. The overall design, development, test and evaluation (DDT&E) cycle for this conventional approach requires long delivery times for space flight electronics and is very expensive. The Small Multi-purpose Advanced Reconfigurable Technology (SMART) concept is currently being developed to overcome the limitations of traditional avionics design. The SMART concept is based upon two multi-functional modules that can be reconfigured to drive and sense a variety of mechanical and electrical components. The SMART units are key to a distributed avionics architecture whereby the modules are located close to or right at the desired application point. The drive module, SMART-D, receives commands from the main computer and controls the spacecraft mechanisms and devices with localized feedback. The sensor module, SMART-S, is used to sense the environmental sensors and offload local limit checking from the main computer. There are numerous benefits that are realized by implementing the SMART system. Localized sensor signal conditioning electronics reduces signal loss and overall wiring mass. Localized drive electronics increase control bandwidth and minimize time lags for critical functions. These benefits in-turn reduce the main processor overhead functions. Since SMART units are standard flight qualified units, DDT&E is reduced and system design can commence much earlier in the design cycle. Increased production scale lowers individual piece part cost and using standard modules also reduces non-recurring costs. The benefit list continues, but the overall message is already evident: the SMART concept is an evolution in spacecraft avionics. SMART devices have the potential to change the design paradigm for future satellites, spacecraft and even commercial applications.

Alhorn, Dean C.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C): Best Practices for Human-Rated Spacecraft Systems

In 2007 the NESC completed an in-depth assessment to identify, define and document engineering considerations for the Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) of human-rated spacecraft systems. This study had been requested by the Astronaut Office at JSC to help them to better understand what is required to ensure safe, robust, and reliable human-rated spacecraft systems. The 22 GN&C engineering Best Practices described in this paper are a condensed version of what appears in the NESC Technical Report. These Best Practices cover a broad range from fundamental system architectural considerations to more specific aspects (e.g., stability margin recommendations) of GN&C system design and development. 15 of the Best Practices address the early phases of a GN&C System development project and the remaining 7 deal with the later phases. Some of these Best Practices will cross-over between both phases. We recognize that this set of GN&C Best Practices will not be universally applicable to all projects and mission applications.

Lebsock, Ken↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA's J-2X Engine Builds on the Apollo Program for Lunar Return Missions

In January 2006, NASA streamlined its U.S. Vision for Space Exploration hardware development approach for replacing the Space Shuttle after it is retired in 2010. The revised CLV upper stage will use the J-2X engine, a derivative of NASA s Apollo Program Saturn V s S-II and S-IVB main propulsion, which will also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) engine. This paper gives details of how the J- 2X engine effort mitigates risk by building on the Apollo Program and other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with first demonstration flight in 2010 and human test flights in 2012. It is well documented that propulsion is historically a high-risk area. NASA s risk reduction strategy for the J-2X engine design, development, test, and evaluation is to build upon heritage hardware and apply valuable experience gained from past development efforts. In addition, NASA and its industry partner, Rocketdyne, which originally built the J-2, have tapped into their extensive databases and are applying lessons conveyed firsthand by Apollo-era veterans of America s first round of Moon missions in the 1960s and 1970s. NASA s development approach for the J-2X engine includes early requirements definition and management; designing-in lessons learned from the 5-2 heritage programs; initiating long-lead procurement items before Preliminary Desi& Review; incorporating design features for anticipated EDS requirements; identifying facilities for sea-level and altitude testing; and starting ground support equipment and logistics planning at an early stage. Other risk reduction strategies include utilizing a proven gas generator cycle with recent development experience; utilizing existing turbomachinery ; applying current and recent main combustion chamber (Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator) and channel wall nozzle (COBRA) advances; and performing rigorous development, qualification, and certification testing of the engine system, with a philosophy of "test what you fly, and fly what you test". These and other active risk management strategies are in place to deliver the J-2X engine for LEO and lunar return missions as outlined in the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration.

Snoddy, Jimmy R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

The J-2X Fuel Turbopump - Design, Development, and Test

Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), a NASA subcontractor, is executing the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) of a liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen two hundred ninety four thousand pound thrust rocket engine initially intended for the Upper Stage (US) and Earth Departure Stage (EDS) of the Constellation Program Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). A key element of the design approach was to base the new J-2X engine on the heritage J-2S engine with the intent of uprating the engine and incorporating SSME and RS-68 lessons learned. The J-2S engine was a design upgrade of the flight proven J-2 configuration used to put American astronauts on the moon. The J-2S Fuel Turbopump (FTP) was the first Rocketdyne-designed liquid hydrogen centrifugal pump and provided many of the early lessons learned for the Space Shuttle Main Engine High Pressure Fuel Turbopumps. This paper will discuss the design trades and analyses performed for the current J-2X FTP to increase turbine life; increase structural margins, facilitate component fabrication; expedite turbopump assembly; and increase rotordynamic stability margins. Risk mitigation tests including inducer water tests, whirligig turbine blade tests, turbine air rig tests, and workhorse gas generator tests characterized operating environments, drove design modifications, or identified performance impact. Engineering design, fabrication, analysis, and assembly activities support FTP readiness for the first J-2X engine test scheduled for July 2011.

Tellier, James G.↗
NASA NTRS2011

The J-2X Oxidizer Turbopump - Design, Development, and Test

Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), a NASA subcontractor, is executing the Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) of a liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen two hundred ninety-four thousand pound thrust rocket engine initially intended for the Upper Stage (US) and Earth Departure Stage (EDS) of the Constellation Program Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). A key element of the design approach was to base the new J-2X engine on the heritage J-2S engine which was a design upgrade of the flight proven J-2 engine used to put American astronauts on the moon. This paper will discuss the design trades and analyses performed to achieve the required uprated Oxidizer Turbopump performance; structural margins and rotordynamic margins; incorporate updated materials and fabrication capability; and reflect lessons learned from legacy and existing Liquid Rocket Propulsion Engine turbomachinery. These engineering design, analysis, fabrication and assembly activities support the Oxidizer Turbopump readiness for J-2X engine test in 2011.

Brozowski, Laura A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Hydrocarbon Rocket Technology Impact Forecasting

Ever since the Apollo program ended, the development of launch propulsion systems in the US has fallen drastically, with only two new booster engine developments, the SSME and the RS-68, occurring in the past few decades.1 In recent years, however, there has been an increased interest in pursuing more effective launch propulsion technologies in the U.S., exemplified by the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist s inclusion of Launch Propulsion Systems as the first technological area in the Space Technology Roadmaps2. One area of particular interest to both government agencies and commercial entities has been the development of hydrocarbon engines; NASA and the Air Force Research Lab3 have expressed interest in the use of hydrocarbon fuels for their respective SLS Booster and Reusable Booster System concepts, and two major commercially-developed launch vehicles SpaceX s Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences Antares feature engines that use RP-1 kerosene fuel. Compared to engines powered by liquid hydrogen, hydrocarbon-fueled engines have a greater propellant density (usually resulting in a lighter overall engine), produce greater propulsive force, possess easier fuel handling and loading, and for reusable vehicle concepts can provide a shorter turnaround time between launches. These benefits suggest that a hydrocarbon-fueled launch vehicle would allow for a cheap and frequent means of access to space.1 However, the time and money required for the development of a new engine still presents a major challenge. Long and costly design, development, testing and evaluation (DDT&E) programs underscore the importance of identifying critical technologies and prioritizing investment efforts. Trade studies must be performed on engine concepts examining the affordability, operability, and reliability of each concept, and quantifying the impacts of proposed technologies. These studies can be performed through use of the Technology Impact Forecasting (TIF) method. The Technology Impact Forecasting method is a normative forecasting technique that allows the designer to quantify the effects of adding new technologies on a given design. This method can be used to assess and identify the necessary technological improvements needed to close the gap that exists between the current design and one that satisfies all constraints imposed on the design. The TIF methodology allows for more design knowledge to be brought to the earlier phases of the design process, making use of tools such as Quality Function Deployments, Morphological Matrices, Response Surface Methodology, and Monte Carlo Simulations.2 This increased knowledge allows for more informed decisions to be made earlier in the design process, resulting in shortened design cycle time. This paper will investigate applying the TIF method, which has been widely used in aircraft applications, to the conceptual design of a hydrocarbon rocket engine. In order to reinstate a manned presence in space, the U.S. must develop an affordable and sustainable launch capability. Hydrocarbon-fueled rockets have drawn interest from numerous major government and commercial entities because they offer a low-cost heavy-lift option that would allow for frequent launches1. However, the development of effective new hydrocarbon rockets would likely require new technologies in order to overcome certain design constraints. The use of advanced design methods, such as the TIF method, enables the designer to identify key areas in need of improvement, allowing one to dial in a proposed technology and assess its impact on the system. Through analyses such as this one, a conceptual design for a hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle that meets all imposed requirements can be achieved.

Stuber, Eric↗
NASA NTRS2008

Enabling and Enhancing Space Mission Success and Reduction of Risk through the Application of an Integrated Data Architecture

The engineering phases of design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT and E) and subsequent planning, preparation, and operation (Ops) of space vehicles in a complex and distributed environment requires massive and continuous flows of information across the enterprise and across temporal stages of the vehicle lifecycle. The resulting capabilities at each subsequent stage depend in part on the capture, preparation, storage, and subsequent provision of information from prior stages. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently designing a fleet of new vehicles that will replace the Space Shuttle and expand space operations and exploration capabilities. This includes the 2 stage human rated lift vehicle Ares 1 and its associated crew vehicle the Orion, and a service module; the heavy lift cargo vehicle, Ares 5, and an associated cargo stage known as the Earth Departure Stage; and a Lunar Lander vehicle that contains a descent stage, and ascent stage, and a habitation module. A variety of concurrent assorted ground operations infrastructure including software and facilities are also being developed, assorted technology and assembly designs and development for equipment such as EVA suits, life support systems, command and control technologies are also in the pipeline. The development is occurring in a distributed manner, with project deliverables being contributed by a large and diverse assortment of vendors and most space faring nations. Critical information about all of the components, software, and procedures must be shared during the DDT and E phases and then made readily available to the mission operations staff for access during the planning, preparation, and operations phases, and also need to be readily available for system to system interactions. The Constellation Data Systems Project (CxDS) is identifying the needs, and designing and deploying systems and processes to support these needs. This paper details the steps and processes that NASA is applying within the Constellation Program to manage this data and information, and to insure that the correct information is available, correctly annotated, and can be provisioned digitally to enhance response times, and support engineering analysis and anomaly resolution.

Brummett, Robert C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2008

Building on 50 Years of Mission Operations Experience for a New Era of Space Exploration

The U.S. National Space Policy, I the 14-nation Global Exploration Strategy,2 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2006 Strategic Plan3 provide foundational direction for far-ranging missions, from safely flying the Space Shuttle and completing construction of the International Space Station by 2010, to fielding a next generation space transportation system consisting of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle!Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle!Altair Lunar Lander (fig. 1). Transportation beyond low-Earth orbit will open the frontier for a lunar outpost, where astronauts will harness in-situ resources while exploring this 4 billion-year-old archaeological site, which may hold answers to how the Earth and its satellite were formed. Ultimately, this experience will pave the way for the first human footprint on Mars. In October 2007, NASA" announced assignments for this lunar exploration work.4 The Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for designing, developing, testing, and evaluating the Ares I and Ares V, which are Space Shuttle derived launch vehicles, along with a number of lunar tasks. The Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate provides the skilled workforce and unique manufacturing, testing, and operational infrastructure needed to deliver space transportation solutions that meet the requirements stated in the Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD). While defining design reference missions to the Station and the Moon, the CARD includes goals that include reducing recurring and nonrecurring costs, while increasing safety and reliability. For this reason, future systems are being designed with operability considerations and lifecycle expenses as independent variables in engineering trade studies.

Onken, Jay F.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Affordable Development and Demonstration of a Small Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Engine and Stage: How Small Is Big Enough?

The Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) derives its energy from fission of uranium-235 atoms contained within fuel elements that comprise the engine's reactor core. It generates high thrust and has a specific impulse potential of approximately 900 specific impulse - a 100 percent increase over today's best chemical rockets. The Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) project, funded by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program, includes five key task activities: (1) Recapture, demonstration, and validation of heritage graphite composite (GC) fuel (selected as the Lead Fuel option); (2) Engine Conceptual Design; (3) Operating Requirements Definition; (4) Identification of Affordable Options for Ground Testing; and (5) Formulation of an Affordable Development Strategy. During fiscal year (FY) 2014, a preliminary Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) plan and schedule for NTP development was outlined by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), Department of Energy (DOE) and industry that involved significant system-level demonstration projects that included Ground Technology Demonstration (GTD) tests at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), followed by a Flight Technology Demonstration (FTD) mission. To reduce cost for the GTD tests and FTD mission, small NTR engines, in either the 7.5 or 16.5 kilopound-force thrust class, were considered. Both engine options used GC fuel and a common fuel element (FE) design. The small approximately 7.5 kilopound-force criticality-limited engine produces approximately157 thermal megawatts and its core is configured with parallel rows of hexagonal-shaped FEs and tie tubes (TTs) with a FE to TT ratio of approximately 1:1. The larger approximately 16.5 kilopound-force Small Nuclear Rocket Engine (SNRE), developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) at the end of the Rover program, produces approximately 367 thermal megawatts and has a FE to TT ratio of approximately 2:1. Although both engines use a common 35-inch (approximately 89-centimeters) -long FE, the SNRE's larger diameter core contains approximately 300 more FEs needed to produce an additional 210 thermal megawatts of power. To reduce the cost of the FTD mission, a simple one-burn lunar flyby mission was considered to reduce the liquid hydrogen (LH2) propellant loading, the stage size and complexity. Use of existing and flight proven liquid rocket and stage hardware (e.g., from the RL10B-2 engine and Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) was also maximized to further aid affordability. This paper examines the pros and cons of using these two small engine options, including their potential to support future human exploration missions to the Moon, near Earth asteroids (NEA), and Mars, and recommends a preferred size. It also provides a preliminary assessment of the key activities, development options, and schedule required to affordably build, ground test and fly a small NTR engine and stage within a 10-year timeframe.

Spacecraft design↗
NASA NTRS2012

Human Exploration Missions - Maturing Technologies to Sustain Crews

Human exploration missions beyond low earth orbit will be long duration with abort scenarios of days to months. Providing crews with the essentials of life such as clean air and potable water means recycling human metabolic wastes back to useful products. Individual technologies are under development for such things as CO2 scrubbing, recovery of O2 from CO2, turning waste water into potable water, and so on. But in order to fully evaluate and mature technologies fully they must be tested in a relevant, high-functionality environment; a systems environment where technologies are challenged with real human metabolic wastes. It is for this purpose that an integrated systems ground testing capability at the Johnson Space Center is being readied for testing. The relevant environment will include deep space habitat human accommodations, sealed atmosphere of 8 psi total pressure and 32% oxygen concentration, life support systems (food, air, water), communications, crew accommodations, medical, EVA, tools, etc. Testing periods will approximate those of the expected missions (such as a near Earth asteroid, Earth ]Moon L2 or L1, the moon, and Mars). This type of integrated testing is needed not only for research and technology development but later during the mission design, development, test, and evaluation phases of preparing for the mission.

Mukai, Chiaki↗
NASA NTRS2015

Affordable Development and Demonstration of a Small NTR Engine and Stage: A Preliminary NASA, DOE, and Industry Assessment

In FY11, NASA formulated a plan for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) development that included Foundational Technology Development followed by system-level Technology Demonstrations. The ongoing NTP project, funded by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program, is focused on Foundational Technology Development and includes 5 key task activities: (1) Fuel element fabrication and non-nuclear validation testing of heritage fuel options; (2) Engine conceptual design; (3) Mission analysis and engine requirements definition; (4) Identification of affordable options for ground testing; and (5) Formulation of an affordable and sustainable NTP development program. Performance parameters for Point of Departure designs for a small criticality-limited and full size 25 klb (sub f) (kip, or 1000 pound-force)-class engine were developed during FYs 13-14 using heritage fuel element designs for both Rover NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications) Graphite Composite (GC) and Ceramic Metal (Cermet) fuel forms. To focus the fuel development effort and maximize use of its resources, the AES program decided, in FY14, that a leader-follower down-selection between GC and cermet fuel was required. An Independent Review Panel (IRP) was convened by NASA and tasked with reviewing the available fuel data and making a recommendation to NASA. In February 2015, the IRP recommended and the AES program endorsed GC as the leader fuel In FY14, a preliminary development schedule DDTE (Design Development Test and Evaluation) plan was produced by GRC (Glenn Research Center), DOE (Department of Energy) and industry for the AES program. Assumptions, considerations and key task activities are presented here. At the direction of NASA HQ (32515), NASA and DOE are to work together to formulate a detailed development plan and schedule allowing the affordable development of a small (7.5-16.5 klbf) GC engine for possible flight technology demonstration (FTD) mission within a 10-year timeframe.

Lunar Flyby Mission↗
NASA NTRS2002

Launch Vehicle Sizing Benefits Utilizing Main Propulsion System Crossfeed and Project Status

To meet the goals for a next generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV), a unique propulsion feed system concept was identified using crossfeed between the booster and orbiter stages that could reduce the Two-Stage-to-Orbit (TSTO) vehicle weight and Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) costs by approximately 25%, while increasing safety and reliability. The Main Propulsion System (MPS) crossfeed water demonstration test program addresses all activities required to reduce the risks for the MPS crossfeed system from a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 2 to 4 by the completion of testing and analysis by June 2003. During the initial period, that ended in March 2002, a subscale water flow test article was defined. Procurement of a subscale crossfeed check valve was initiated and the specifications for the various components were developed. The fluid transient and pressurization analytical models were developed separately and successfully integrated. The test matrix for the water flow test was developed to correlate the integrated model. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the crossfeed check valve was developed to assess flow disturbances and internal flow dynamics. Based on the results, the passive crossfeed system concept was very feasible and offered a safe system to be used in an RLV architecture. A water flow test article was designed to accommodate a wide range of flows simulating a number of different types of propellant systems. During the follow-on period, the crossfeed system model will be further refined, the test article will be completed, the water flow test will be performed, and finally the crossfeed system model will be correlated with the test data. This validated computer model will be used to predict the full-scale vehicle crossfeed system performance.

Chandler, Frank↗
NASA NTRS2018

Potential Advantages of Conducting Short Duration Visits to the Martian Surface

Recent NASA concepts for human missions to Mars, including the Evolvable Mars Campaign and Design Reference Architecture 5.0, have focused on the conduct of missions with long duration stays on the Martian surface. The decision to focus on long duration missions (typically to a single site) is driven by a desire to increase the perceived sustainability of the human Mars campaign, predicated on the assumption that sustainability is best achieved by maximizing the level of activity on the surface, providing for continuous growth in operations, and promoting pioneering of Mars. However, executing a series of long duration missions to a single site is not the only option for human exploration of Mars that has been proposed. Other architectures have been evaluated that focus on missions with short duration surface stays, with each mission visiting a separate site on the surface. This type of architecture is less efficient in that elements are not typically reused from one mission to the next but requires a far less complex surface architecture. There are potentially valid arguments to be made that a short duration, multiple site approach could result in different types of advantages when compared to the long duration, single site approach to Mars exploration, particularly for initial human missions to Mars. These arguments revolve around four areas: Achieved Value, Risk Mitigation, Developmental Affordability, and Operational Affordability & Flexibility. The question of Achieved Value relates to the prioritization of goals for Martian exploration. As discussed, goals related to pioneering and expanding human presence are often referenced as justifications for the long duration approach. However, there are other competing goals, including science and exploration. While there is not a clear consensus among planetary scientists, many have argued that the value of being able to visit multiple sites could outweigh the value of continually visiting a single site. Risk Mitigation is a major concern for initial human missions to Mars. There are a number of hazards related to operating on the Martian surface that are not well characterized. It may be desirable to conduct a series of short duration missions to better understand the nature of these risks prior to committing to a long duration mission. Developmental Affordability relates to the ability of NASA and its partners to develop and deploy the proposed architecture. Any human missions to Mars will be among the most complex endeavors ever undertaken. The capabilities that must be developed to enable any human Mars missions are extremely challenging. The total design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) budget required to develop just the essential capabilities alone will be substantial. If additional surface capabilities are required to support long duration surface stays, the development effort could be unaffordable. Operational Affordability & Flexibility relates to the continued costs to execute the Mars campaign. Long duration missions, even with some amount of in-situ resource utilization, require a significant level of resupply for every mission. This requires additional launches and in-space transportation assets, increasing the operational complexity and total operational cost. This paper will explore each of the four potential advantages of short duration missions in detail. The authors will present comparisons between proposed long duration and short duration architectures through an evaluation of relevant performance, cost, and risk metrics.

Stromgren, Chel↗
NASA NTRS2010

Altitude Testing of Large Liquid Propellant Engines

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration entered a new age on January 14, 2004 with President Bush s announcement of the creation the Vision for Space Exploration that will take mankind back to the Moon and on beyond to Mars. In January, 2006, after two years of hard, dedicated labor, engineers within NASA and its contractor workforce decided that the J2X rocket, based on the heritage of the Apollo J2 engine, would be the new engine for the NASA Constellation Ares upper stage vehicle. This engine and vehicle combination would provide assured access to the International Space Station to replace that role played by the Space Shuttle and additionally, would serve as the Earth Departure Stage, to push the Crew Excursion Vehicle out of Earth Orbit and head it on a path for rendezvous with the Moon. Test as you fly, fly as you test was chosen to be the guiding philosophy and a pre-requisite for the engine design, development, test and evaluation program. An exhaustive survey of national test facility assets proved the required capability to test the J2X engine at high altitude for long durations did not exist so therefore, a high altitude/near space environment testing capability would have to be developed. After several agency concepts the A3 High Altitude Testing Facility proposal was selected by the J2X engine program on March 2, 2007 and later confirmed by a broad panel of NASA senior leadership in May 2007. This facility is to be built at NASA s John C. Stennis Space Center located near Gulfport, Mississippi. 30 plus years of Space Shuttle Main Engine development and flight certification testing makes Stennis uniquely suited to support the Vision For Space Exploration Return to the Moon. Propellant handling infrastructure, engine assembly facilities, a trained and dedicated workforce and a broad and varied technical support base will all ensure that the A3 facility will be built on time to support the schedule needs of the J2X engine and the ultimate flight of the first Ares I vehicle. The A3 facility will be able to simulate pre-ignition altitude from sea-level to 100,000 feet and maintain it up to 650 seconds. Additionally the facility will be able to accommodate initial ignition, shutdown and then restart test profiles. A3 will produce up to 5000 lbm/sec of superheated steam utilizing a Chemical Steam generation system. Two separate inline steam ejectors will be used to produce a test cell vacuum to simulate the 100,000 ft required altitude. Operational capability will ensure that the facility can start up and shutdown without producing adverse pressure gradients across the J2X nozzle. The facility will have a modern thrust measurement system for accurate determination of engine performance. The latest advances in data acquisition and control will be incorporated to measure performance parameters during hotfire testing. Provisions are being made in the initial design of the new altitude facility to allow for testing of other, larger engines and potential upper stage launch vehicles that might require vacuum start testing of the engines. The new facility at Stennis Space Center will be complete and ready for hotfire operations in late 2010.

Maynard, Bryon T.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Space Tug Docking Study. Volume 5: Cost Analysis

The cost methodology, summary cost data, resulting cost estimates by Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), technical characteristics data, program funding schedules and the WBS for the costing are discussed. Cost estimates for two tasks of the study are reported. The first, developed cost estimates for design, development, test and evaluation (DDT&E) and theoretical first unit (TFU) at the component level (Level 7) for all items reported in the data base. Task B developed total subsystem DDT&E costs and funding schedules for the three candidate Rendezvous and Docking Systems: manual, autonomous, and hybrid.

Source record↗