Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NASA Center History Series”

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.

602 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2026

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned: Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes and Key Takeaways

On February 25, 2026, this NASA Talk was held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery, Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes & Key Takeaways). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring these talks to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talks. NASA Mishap Program Specialist David Erickson presented this talk. Mr. Erickson supports NASA mishap investigations and assists with the development of NASA's new Columbia Learning Center at KSC. This talk was timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team. This record includes an mp4 video with a run time of 32 min. 31 sec.; in color; with sound.

NASA Talks↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Time-History Statistics of Soot Formation in A Model Gas Turbine Combustor

Soot formation is a complex dynamic and intermittent process determined by properties of the fuel, combustor design, and combustor operation. Although the major steps in soot formation (i.e., formation of precursors, inception, growth and evolution) are similar for a variety of carbonaceous fuels, applications, and operating conditions, it remains unclear when the temporal transition between these steps occurs. An engineering prediction tool coupled with computational fluid physics (CFD), therefore needs to accurately model all these complex steps. To develop such a model, we propose the time-history concept for understanding the time dependency of soot formation as a function of local properties (i.e., temperature, velocity, local fuel air ratio, etc.). We continue our previous work with modeling the DLR aero-combustor [1] with our updated in-house CFD code, Open National Combustion Code (OpenNCC), that now includes a Multiple Time-Scale Flamelet Progress Variable approach and a the semi-empirical two-equation soot model. We injected massless tracer particles upstream of the injector region of the combustor to collect time-history statistics of the solution variables. The correlations between the collected statistics with respect to the experimental soot volume fraction data showed that time-history effect of certain flow variables, including turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), and multiple species is indeed important for soot formation. We then conducted a time-history based correlation analysis to determine the key species and the concentration ranges critical for soot formation (C6H5-based nucleation, acetylene-based surface growth, and oxidation with OH and O2). Based on the time-history correlation coefficient (THCC) analysis, we propose possible modifications to improve the current two-equation model.

LES↗
NASA NTRS2026

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned

On February 25, 2026, two NASA Talks were held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery, Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes & Key Takeaways). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring these talks to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talks. NASA Mishap Program Specialist David Erickson and retired NASA Columbia Vehicle Manager Scott Thurston presented these talks. Mr. Erickson supports NASA mishap investigations and assists with the development of NASA's new Columbia Learning Center at KSC. Mr. Thurston brought a wealth of knowledge from his mission experience. These talks were timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team.

Space Shuttle Columbia↗
NASA NTRS2026

Unraveling the Complex History of Aqueous Alteration and Metamorphism in CV Chondrite, Camel Donga 040

Camel Donga (CD) 040 is a CV breccia collected from Australia in 1988. Initial studies of CD 040 revealed two lithologies, both containing chondrules up to 1 mm in diameter (some with fine-grained rims) and abundant troilite, but each with remarkably different olivine compositions. Lithology 1 was characterized as petrologic type 3 material, while lithology 2 was described as being “heated to ~1100°C”. CD 040 was initially classified as an ungrouped C3; however, subsequent analyses of oxygen isotopes and bulk rock compositions confirmed that both lithologies were CV chondrite material. Though CD 040 was one of the earliest examples of a CV chondrite containing metamorphosed material, it was never extensively studied. Here we report the results of a detailed study of CD 040, focusing primarily on the petrography and mineral chemistry of metamorphosed lithology.

T L Dunn↗
NASA NTRS2026

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned: Columbia Launch and Recovery

On February 25, 2026, this NASA Talk was held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring this talk to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talk. Retired NASA Columbia Vehicle Manager Scott Thurston presented this talk. Mr. Thurston brings a wealth of knowledge from his mission experience. This talk was timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team. This record includes an mp4 video presentation with a run time of 36 min. 20 sec.; in color; with sound.

NASA Talks↗
NASA NTRS1977

Riddles About the Origin and Thermal History of the Moon

Analyses of lunar rocks have confirmed that the interior of the Moon has been subjected to magmatic differentiation, as has been determined by calculation of the thermal history of the Moon. However, it appears that differentiation occurred so early that it could not have been related to heating by long-lived radioactive elements, but rather indicates a high initial temperature of the Moon. The reasons for the high initial temperature remain unknown. The presence of a central, partially melted area revealed by seismic observations forces us to reject convective models of the Moon, while the dimensions of this area, together with the measured heat fluxes from the interior, serve as "boundary conditions" for any new calculations of the thermal history for a two-layered differentiated model of the Moon operative over the past 3.5 billion years. If we start with the early differentiation of the Moon and the high content of long-lived radioactive elements in it, explanation of its current thermal properties represents no difficulty. But these prerequisites themselves remain unexplained. Due to the continuing controversy concerning the true nature of the process of magmatic differentiation of the Moon, estimation of the composition of the entire Moon on the basis of analyses of surface rock remains unreliable, and use of these estimates to clarify the origin of the Moon is premature. Existing hypotheses concerning the origin of the Moon encounter dynamic difficulties, as well as difficulties with explanation of the high initial temperature, to say nothing of the difficulty involved in explaining the proposed differences in the composition of the Earth and Moon.

B Yu Levin↗
NASA NTRS2026

Adaptive Curation at NASA Johnson Space Center: Preparing for Artemis Samples by Leveraging Proven Practices and Innovative Solution

The proper curation of returned astromaterial samples is essential to ensure that high-quality scientific investigations can be conducted for decades, enabling future generations to address evolving research questions. The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (hereafter JSC Curation) is responsible for curating all of NASA’s extraterrestrial samples. Under the governing document, NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7100.5 “Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials”, JSC Curation is charged with “The curation of all extraterrestrial material under NASA control, including future NASA missions.” The Directive goes on to define Curation as including “...documentation, preservation, preparation, and distribution of samples for research, education, and public outreach.” JSC Curation has a long-standing legacy of curating extraterrestrial materials, including but not limited to Apollo and Luna lunar samples, Genesis solar wind samples, Stardust comet samples, asteroid samples (Hayabusa1, Hayabusa2, and OSIRIS-REx), and Antarctic Meteorite samples from a variety of parent bodies. Building on this foundation, the Artemis program introduces new challenges and opportunities for sample curation, requiring both the application of proven practices and the development of innovative solutions. The Artemis Collection will be curated using established protocols refined through decades of experience with Apollo and subsequent sample collections, including but not limited to the utilization of cleanrooms, custom nitrogen gloveboxes, specialized storage containers and tools; all of which have strict material utilization and prohibition requirements. These practices provide a robust framework for contamination control, documentation, and long-term preservation. However, Artemis samples may present unique scientific and operational requirements, including enhanced contamination control measures (relative to Apollo) driven by evolving science objectives. To meet these needs, JSC Curation is actively developing new technologies and protocols that extend beyond traditional approaches, ensuring that the integrity of samples is maintained under increasingly stringent standards. One critical area of innovation is the development of cold sample curation capabilities. Certain Artemis samples, particularly those from Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs) and cold environments, are expected to contain ices and volatile components that require preservation and handling at sub-zero or even cryogenic temperatures. JSC Curation is leveraging best practices from the cold and cryogenic sample industries, as well as other government agencies and academic experts, to design facilities and handling procedures that maintain sample integrity while enabling scientific access. The goal is to develop capabilities to allow researchers to investigate volatiles and other temperature-sensitive materials while minimizing chemical and physical alterations from their returned state. In summary, adaptive curation at JSC combines the reliability of proven methodologies with forward-looking innovations to meet the scientific and operational demands of Artemis. Through enhanced contamination control, advanced cold curation capabilities, and an understanding of known and evolving future science priorities, NASA is preparing to maximize the scientific return from Artemis samples and preserve their value for generations of researchers.

Andrea D Harrington↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Revisiting the Soyuz-1 Parachute Failure in the Context of Safety in the Modern Era

The Soyuz‑1 accident remains one of the most consequential parachute related failures in human spaceflight history and provides enduring lessons for modern Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) system design. Occurring during the height of the Cold War and the Space Race, the mission unfolded under extraordinary political and schedule pressure as the Soviet Union sought to maintain its early leadership in space achievements following the death of chief designer Sergei Korolev. Despite unresolved propulsion, electrical, and parachute system deficiencies, Soyuz‑1 proceeded to launch and immediately encountered critical inflight anomalies, including a failed solar panel deployment, attitude control issues, and communication dropouts. Upon reentry, a malfunction in the parachute system, driven by a primary main canopy that failed to deploy, and subsequent entanglement of the reserve main canopy with the primary drogue parachute, resulted in insufficient deceleration and the fatal crash of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. Subsequent investigations revealed deep rooted cultural and organizational issues within the Soviet space program, including inadequate testing, suppression of dissent, undocumented last minute design changes, and the absence of integrated parachute system verification. More than 200 design flaws were identified after the accident, and firsthand accounts, including those from Yuri Gagarin, highlighted widespread concern prior to launch. Over time, the Soviet program implemented substantial reforms: systematic design corrections, rigorous process documentation, and an extensive series of drop tests that ultimately transformed the Soyuz system into one of the world’s most reliable human-rated return vehicles. This paper examines the technical architecture of the Soyuz‑1 parachute system, reconstructs the likely deployment sequence and failure mechanism, and analyzes the cultural contributors that shaped the accident. The study draws parallels to modern spacecraft parachute development, emphasizing the critical importance of integrated system testing, transparent engineering culture, and continuous hardware surveillance. These lessons remain directly relevant to today’s NASA and Commercial Crew Programs (CCP), where the Government continues to refine its understanding of aggregate risk and strengthen overall astronaut safety in the face of increasingly complex parachute systems.

Aaron L Morris↗
NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype

The automation of pre-launch diagnostics for launch vehicles offers three potential benefits: improving safety, reducing cost, and reducing launch delays. The Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype demonstrated anomaly detection, fault detection, fault isolation, and diagnostics for the Ares I-X first-stage Thrust Vector Control and for the associated ground hydraulics while the vehicle was in the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and while it was on the launch pad. The prototype combines three existing tools. The first tool, TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System), is a model-based tool from Qualtech Systems Inc. for fault isolation and diagnostics. The second tool, SHINE (Spacecraft Health Inference Engine), is a rule-based expert system that was developed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We developed SHINE rules for fault detection and mode identification, and used the outputs of SHINE as inputs to TEAMS. The third tool, IMS (Inductive Monitoring System), is an anomaly detection tool that was developed at NASA Ames Research Center. The three tools were integrated and deployed to KSC, where they were interfaced with live data. This paper describes how the prototype performed during the period of time before the launch, including accuracy and computer resource usage. The paper concludes with some of the lessons that we learned from the experience of developing and deploying the prototype.

Machine Learning↗
NASA NTRS2002

Research Reports: 2001 NASA/ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program

For the thirty-seventh consecutive year, a NASA/ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Summer Faculty Fellowship Program was conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The program was conducted by The University of Alabama in Huntsville and MSFC during the period May 29 - August 3, 2001. Operated under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education, the MSFC program, as well as those at other NASA Centers, was sponsored by the University Affairs Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. The basic objectives of the programs, which are in the thirty-seventh year of operation nationally, are (1) to further the professional knowledge of qualified engineering and science faculty members; (2) to stimulate an exchange of ideas between participants and NASA; (3) to enrich and refresh the research and teaching activities of the participants' institutions; and (4) to contribute to the research objectives of the NASA Centers. The Faculty Fellows spent ten weeks at MSFC engaged in a research project compatible with their interests and background and worked in collaboration with a NASA MSFC colleague. This document is a compilation of Fellows' reports on their research during the summer of 2001.

Avionics↗
NASA NTRS1985

Workshop on Advances in NASA-Relevant, Minimally Invasive Instrumentation

The purpose of this meeting is to highlight those advances in instrumentation and methodology that can be applied to the medical problems that will be encountered as the duration of manned space missions is extended. Information on work that is presently being done by NASA as well as other approaches in which NASA is not participating will be exchanged. The NASA-sponsored efforts that will be discussed are part of the overall Space Medicine Program that has been undertaken by NASA to address the medical problems of manned spaceflight. These problems include those that have been observed in the past as well as those which are anticipated as missions become longer, traverse different orbits, or are in any way different. This conference is arranged in order to address the types of instrumentation that might be used in several major medical problem areas. Instrumentation that will help in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and psychological areas, among others will be presented. Interest lies in identifying instrumentation which will help in learning more about ourselves through experiments performed directly on humans. Great emphasis is placed on non-invasive approaches, although every substantial program basic to animal research will be needed in the foreseeable future. Space Medicine is a rather small affair in what is primarily an engineering organization. Space Medicine is conducted throughout NASA by a very small skeleton staff at the headquarters office in Washington and by our various field centers. These centers include the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Throughout these various centers, work is conducted in-house by NASA's own staff scientists, physicians, and engineers. In addition, various universities, industries, and other government laboratories perform research that cannot be effectively carried out in-house. At the moment, approximately 50% of the work is performed in-house and 50% is extramural. The area of bioinstrumentation pervades every one of our problem areas. In each, equipment or procedures are being developed that will allow more clinical work to be done in a ground-based or spacecraft setting. Although work of this kind goes on throughout the NASA organization and through its grants and contracts in the community at large, the major thrust of it is concentrated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which plays a lead role in this type of research and acts as the lead center in bioinstrumentation for NASA. It is recognized that there is much additional research being pursued in this area which would be potentially valuable to NASA and could, with some stimulation from, be made more applicable to NASA's needs. It is hoped, therefore, that the proceedings of this conference will be used as the basis for developing research strategies to be used as a road map to point the way in which NASA's own sponsored program should proceed over the course of the next three years. Additionally, it is hoped that the conference will highlight additional areas in which NASA should be involved either in-house or through the sponsorship of non-NASA scientists. NASA would also like to get an idea of which areas should be emphasized or perhaps de-emphasized among those that it is currently pursuing. In considering these questions, the discussion should concern itself not so much with whether a particular procedure or piece of equipment would work in a spacecraft, but rather, with whether the procedures that are advocated are at the state-of-the-art or beyond the state-of-the-art and whether they hold promise of giving additional insight into the problems to be confronted as humans venture into space for longer and longer periods of time.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1977

Calculations of the Moon's Thermal History at Different Concentrations of Radioactive Elements, Taking Into Account Differentiation on Melting

Calculations of the thermal history of the moon were carried out by solving the thermal conductivity equation for the case in which the heat sources are the long-lived radioactive elements Th, U, and K 40 . The concentrations of these elements were adjusted to give four variations of the heat flow: 1.35 x 10 -8 and 0.91 x 10 -6 cal cm -2 s -1 (I and I**), 0.61 x 10 -6 (variant II, the terrestrial mixture of Lyubimova and Starkova), and 0.236 x 10 -6 (variant III, the chondrite model of Urey and MacDonald). In the same calculations, we considered layering of the differentiated material with transport to the surface of the radioactive elements after the temperature of the layer rose to 200 K above the melting temperature, which is considered in five variants that differ in the amount of transported radioactive elements: 100 percent ( n = 1), 80 percent n = 0.8), 40 percent, 20 percent ( n = 0.6, 0.4, 0.2). During fusion the heat capacity and heat conductivity were changed. We considered two variants of an initially cold (273 K) and hot (900 K) Moon. Calculations show that the interior of the Moon was heated to melting during the first 0.7 to 2.3 x 10 9 years. The maximum fusion involved practically the entire Moon to a distance from 15 to 45 km beneath the surface, and started 3.5 to 4.0 x 10 9 years ago (I, I**), or 2.5 to 3.0 x 10 9 years ago (II, III) and continued for 1 to 2 x 10 9 years. Today the Moon is cooling. The current thickness of the solid crust is from 150 to 200 km and the heat flow exceeds the stationary value 1.5 fold. Apparently the most realistic variant is II (terrestrial mixture) for an initially hot Moon, and gives, regardless of the moderate concentration of radioactive elements, a heat flow of 0.9 to 0.95 x 10 -6 cal cm -2 s -1 , which agrees with the radioastronomical measurements of Troitsky and Krotikov and with the Apollo 15 data.

O I Ornatskaya↗
NASA NTRS1967

Guidelines for Schlieren Systems at Langley Research Center

The original Langley Working Paper (LWP 448) published on July 27th, 1967, provided guidance to NASA Langley Research Center personnel on how to set up conventional path-integrated schlieren flow visualization systems and what pitfalls could be expected with such setups. The guidance and information contained in the document continues to be used for schlieren setups at NASA Langley Research Center to this day. The most commonly used method of flow visualization in supersonic wind tunnels is the schlieren method, or method of striae. At the Langley Research Center, this method is so commonly used that it has come to be regarded somewhat as merely another piece of instrumentation which is to be maintained by service people, and which is too mysteriously complicated to be touched by tunnel personnel. This should not be the case. High-quality results from a schlieren system can only be obtained by having personnel on the tunnel staff who are well-informed on the subject and who have the time and the interest to do a good job of adjustment. This paper is a discussion in practical terms, of some of the points to be considered and the pitfalls that may be encountered in designing, setting up and using a working schlieren system. It is directed specifically toward helping specify and install a Z-type mirror system. It is hoped that the material will be of assistance to facilities throughout the Center and NASA and that users of the schlieren method will be inspired to the point of training people in the adjustment of the systems in use at their facilities.

Langley Working Papers↗
NASA NTRS1966

Proceedings of the Fifth Photovoltaic Specialists Conference: Volume II - Thin Film Solar Cells and Radiation Damage

This conference, the fifth of its kind, was cosponsored by IEEE, AIAA, and the NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center. Facilities for meetings and other arrangements were the responsibility of NASA-Goddard. Presentations are included in the order in which delivered at the conference and were prepared from papers submitted to the Power Information Center (PIC) through the IEEE. Presentations are arranged in three volumes and five sections reflecting the arrangement of the conference into three days and five sessions. Contents of the volumes are as follows: - Volume I - Advanced Solar Cells - Volume II - Thin Film Solar Cells and Radiation Damage - Volume III - Solar Power Systems Considerations

Conference↗
NASA NTRS2002

The 2001 NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop

This document contains the proceedings of the 34th annual NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop, hosted by the Marshall Space Flight Center, November 27-29, 2001. The workshop was attended by scientists and engineers from various agencies of the US Government, aerospace contractors, and battery manufacturers, as well as international participation in like kind. The subjects covered included nickel-hydrogen, nickel-cadmium, lithium-ion, and silver-zinc technologies.

Brewer, Jeff C.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Lewis Research Center battery overview

The topics covered are presented in viewgraph form and include the following: the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite; the Space Station Freedom (SSF) photovoltaic power module division; Ni/H2 battery and cell design; individual pressure vessel (IPV) nickel-hydrogen cell testing SSF support; the LeRC Electrochemical Technology Branch; improved design IPV nickel-hydrogen cells; advanced technology for IPV nickel-hydrogen flight cells; a lightweight nickel-hydrogen cell; bipolar nickel-hydrogen battery development and technology; aerospace nickel-metal hydride cells; the NASA Sodium-Sulfur Cell Technology Flight Experiment; and the lithium-carbon dioxide battery thermodynamic model.

Odonnell, Patricia↗
NASA NTRS2000

The 1999 NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop

This document contains the proceedings of the 32nd annual NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop, hosted by the Marshall Space Flight Center on November 16-18, 1999. The workshop was attended by scientists and engineers from various agencies of the US Government, aerospace contractors, and battery manufacturers, as well as international participation in like kind from a number of countries around the world. The subjects covered included nickel-hydrogen, nickel-cadmium, lithium-ion, and silver-zinc technologies.

Brewer, J. C.↗