Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”

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 NTRS2018

Engineering Trade-off Considerations Regarding Design-for-Security, Design-for-Verification, and Design-for-Test

The United States government has identified that application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) and field programmable gate array (FPGA) hardware are at risk from a variety of adversary attacks. This finding affects system security and trust. Consequently, processes are being developed for system mitigation and countermeasure application. The scope of this tutorial pertains to potential vulnerabilities and countermeasures within the ASIC/FPGA design cycle. The presentation demonstrates how design practices can affect the risk for the adversary to: change circuitry, steal intellectual property, and listen to data operations. An important portion of the design cycle is assuring the design is working as specified or as expected. This is accomplished by exhaustive testing of the target design. Alternatively, it has been shown that well established schemes for test coverage enhancement (design-for-verification (DFV) and design-for-test (DFT)) can create conduits for adversary accessibility. As a result, it is essential to perform a trade between robust test coverage versus reliable design implementation. The goal of this tutorial is to explain the evolution of design practices; review adversary accessibility points due to DFV and DFT circuitry insertion (back door circuitry); and to describe common engineering trade-off considerations for test versus adversary threats.

Design for reliability (DFR)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Orbital Debris Mitigation and CubeSats

The 2019 Update to the United States Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) included CubeSats for the first time as a special class of space operations. This is the first governmental-level policy document that calls for CubeSats to follow quantitative recommendations for orbital debris mitigation. While CubeSats were never exempt from such recommendations, mission designers often under assess CubeSats due to their small size and historically low level of stored energy. Qualitative assessments of debris potential are less applicable as miniaturized energy systems (propulsive and electrical) become more available and as the “CubeSat” label is applied to larger payloads. Of particular interest to the long-term evolution of the debris environment is the likelihood of accidental explosion or collision; we must also consider the risk to the human population from reentering spacecraft. We discuss the on-orbit history of CubeSats and present guidance to assist in designing for future compliance with the new standard practices.

Chris L Ostrom↗
NASA NTRS2022

Tri-Agency Reliability Engineering Guidance: Post Mission Disposal and Extension Assessment

The Trilateral partners — the European Space Agency (ESA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the United States Government (USG) in their execution of safe and successful missions, have a long-standing history of sustaining the shared space environment of operational Earth-Moon orbits with their global space-stewardship, or spacekeeping, of these areas. This has driven missions to limit the generation of new and long-lived debris, control debris releases, minimize accidental explosions and collisions, and ensure Post-Mission Disposal of space systems, so that the environment remains safe for future operations and explorations. Given the continued need for space systems to support global mandatory infrastructure and commercial enterprise, spacefarers are extending beyond the Trilateral partners, more and smaller satellites are being deployed, and current assets are being utilized much longer than expected. This is making space more congested than ever; therefore, the Trilateral partners are evaluating potential future debris mitigation strategies, evolving technology, developing on-orbit servicing capabilities, and advancing their abilities to assess disposal and mission extension plans. They are also sharing their lessons learned and identifying opportunities for future state-of-the-art advancements for current and future space enterprises. Sustaining the space environment cannot be ensured by any one agency or country. Thus, the Trilateral authors have shared their lessons learned, insights, and guidance, herein, on disposal and mission extension assessment strategies with the gratitude of each agency. As such, this document is not prescriptive, but was formulated to enhance value-and-risk-balanced operational decision-making, support policy refinement, and guide spacefaring partners beyond these agencies to assess their activities in space with safety and a global space-stewardship, or spacekeeping, in mind. This includes not only the disposal and mission extension assessment addressed herein, but also preserving space history, ensuring collaboration/interoperability of technology, supporting fellow operators without interfering, and the utilization of in-situ resources for the common benefit of humankind. It is the intention of the Trilateral partners that this document evolves based on community lessons learned and the introduction of new assessment methodologies. So, all readers are encouraged to share their insights with the authors from their own application of this guidance or other strategies to ensure each mission has a successful, safe, and judicious life and conclusion.

ESA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Implementation of Cloud Services for Human Space Flight

Cloud is a tried-and-true technology used throughout United States government agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). With reliable results and infrequent downtimes, cloud allows for secure remote access, customizability, and streamlined monitoring options, creating an environment for better data integrity and availability. As NASA increasingly migrates functions to the cloud, the Space Communications and Navigation Program (SCaN) program has been investigating how this capability can be leveraged to provide communication services to its users and customers. Currently, missions such as NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE), and Roman Space Telescope (RST) are planned to incorporate cloud into their data delivery architecture. However, SCaN is looking to expand further. This conversion to using cloud services allows for greater availability of mission data for both robotic and human space flight (HSF)missions. The SCaN program and the Near Space Network (NSN) are working to consolidate resources and create a cloud environment suitable for the entirety of the SCaN program network architecture. SCaN is in the process of finalizing its cloud architecture and soon will be implementing cloud services. The new services used will adhere to federal regulations including Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), which is built upon National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)documentation. While keeping in mind these security requirements, an auxiliary objective of the cloud integration is to ensure the most cost-efficient solution; providing a scalable, robust and resilient system. Using cloud services, NASA will gain access to better centralized monitoring and management features, along with customizable services on a pay-per-use plan. With the ever-growing NASA mission data volume needs, maintaining ample storage space is another major constraint. Processing and storing such large amounts of data, on the order of terabytes a day, requires dynamic processing capability which is inherently a strength of cloud computing. By routing this data from ground stations through the cloud, there will be greater ease of access for both SCaN and the user community. Artificial intelligence and other built-in cloud functions can also enhance efficiency, improving data processing time. Thereby also allowing for better data availability. As we look to the future of cloud services, NASA will continue to leverage capabilities that will benefit NASA’s ability to provide cost-effective communication services. This paper further outlines the evolution of cloud use by SCaN in the context of Human Space Flight.

cloud storage↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Addressing the High-Rate Deep Space Communications Shortfall in NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate's Envisioned Future

NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) has identified key technologies needed for future crewed and robotic exploration and science missions. STMD is helping to build the civilian technology base by working with other NASA Mission Directorates, other United States government agencies, commercial industry, and academia to identify technology shortfalls and to develop plans to address them. One critical area of shortfalls lies with deep space communications and navigation. While NASA had huge success to date with the Deep Space Network (DSN), recent studies have shown that without enhancements to current systems, the DSN will be unable to support the anticipated increases in the pace of space exploration or the expected higher data rates from deep space needed soon without severely impacting other missions. High-rate communications from the Moon and beyond is needed to enable future exploration and science missions currently being developed or under consideration. For example, a robust communications infrastructure will be needed to support a sustained human presence on the Moon and its eventual industrialization. High data rate trunk lines between the Earth and the Moon are needed to reduce the number of individual links. The human exploration of Mars will also require high-rate communications between Earth and Mars. Return data rates to Earth from Mars for a single link, for example, are anticipated to be greater than 100 Mb/s; forward data rates to Mars, based on experience from the International Space Station, are anticipated to be greater than 20 Mb/s. Future deep space science missions will also require higher data rates than possible with today’s technology and the current capabilities of the DSN. To support future exploration and science needs, it will be necessary to upgrade the DSN to enhance its radio frequency (RF) capabilities. In addition, it is envisioned that NASA will gradually introduce optical communications to augment its RF systems. Optical communications will enable new science and exploration missions by providing high data rates and better navigation over long distances. This paper will briefly describe STMD’s envisioned future for deep space communications in the 2030+ timeframe and the technology roadmaps being developed for both radio frequency and optical systems.

Bernard Edwards↗
NASA NTRS1997

NASA as a Catalyst: Use of Satellite Data in the States

NASA revolutionized our view of the world in 1972 with the launch of the first satellite to monitor the Earth. Recognizing the importance of states in governing the United States, NASA then established a program in the late 1970s to educate and assist states in using satellite data products. This report reviews this brief, but beneficial program that laid a foundation and catalyzed satellite data work that continues today in several states. More recently, outreach efforts as part of NASAs Mission to Planet Earth program and growing state government roles, responsibilities, and initiatives led NASA to begin a new effort in 1994 to understand and work effectively with states. This effort included an investigation and synthesis of current satellite data conditions in each of the 50 states that are included in this report. It provided strong evidence that some state governments are applying satellite data to an increasing array of government needs, while other states have very limited applications to date. A wide range of satellite data applications in executive branch agencies are described, as well as the recent status of the Gap Analysis Program in each of the states with this program. The report also reviews the status of satellite data and geographic information coordination efforts in each of the 50 states. In addition to this investigation, NASA convened a meeting of representatives of 12 states experienced with satellite data to identify future satellite data uses and needs, as well as NASA opportunities to enhance the utility of satellite data products. The findings and recommendations from this meeting, the 50 state investigations, and NASAs past state programs are also included in the report; they provide the rationale for NASA to establish a new outreach effort with state governments in the late 1990s.

Warnecke, Lisa↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Wallops Flight Facility Model for an Integrated Federal/Commercial Launch Range

Historically, the federal government has been the predominant purchaser of space launches in the United States. The government met its needs through purchase of hardware and services. It also provided the infrastructure necessary to conduct launch operations through federal launch ranges, both military and NASA. Under this model, the government had the complete ownership, responsibility, liability, and expense for launch activities. As the commercial space sector grew, there emerged a corresponding growth in demand for launch range services. However, the expense and complexity of activities has thus far deterred a rapid rise in the establishment of purely commercial launch sites. In this context, purely commercial is defined as "without benefit of capabilities provided by the federal government." Consistent with the Commercial Space Launch Act, in recent years NASA and the Air Force have supported commercial launches from government launch ranges on a cost-reimbursable, non-interference basis. In this mode the commercial launch service providers contract with the government to provide services including use of facilities, tracking and data services, and range safety. As the commercial market projections began to show significant opportunities for economic development, several states established spaceports to provide the services necessary to meet these projected commercial needs. In 1997, NASA agreed to the establishment of the Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) at the Wallops Flight Facility. Under this arrangement, NASA agreed to allow Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA) to construct facilities on NASA property and agreed to provide services in accordance with the Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (as amended) to support VSFC launch customers. The relationship between NASA and VCSFA, however, has evolved beyond a customer supplier relationship. A partnership relationship has emerged which pairs the strengths of the established NASA test range and the state-sponsored, commercial launch facility provider, in an attempt to satisfy the needs for flexible, low-cost access to space. Furthermore, the future of the NASA/Wallops Test Range is closely linked with the success of VCSFA in promoting commercial launches from Wallops. This paper will describe the changing paradigm of the federal launch range and the unique aspects of the NASA/Wallops Facility relationship with VCSFA. Discussion will include institutional cost-sharing, business development and marketing, joint educational programs, and strategic planning.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Final Report for Intravenous Fluid Generation (IVGEN) Spaceflight Experiment

NASA designed and operated the Intravenous Fluid Generation (IVGEN) experiment onboard the International Space Station (ISS), Increment 23/24, during May 2010. This hardware was a demonstration experiment to generate intravenous (IV) fluid from ISS Water Processing Assembly (WPA) potable water using a water purification technique and pharmaceutical mixing system. The IVGEN experiment utilizes a deionizing resin bed to remove contaminants from feedstock water to a purity level that meets the standards of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), the governing body for pharmaceuticals in the United States. The water was then introduced into an IV bag where the fluid was mixed with USP-grade crystalline salt to produce USP normal saline (NS). Inline conductivity sensors quantified the feedstock water quality, output water purity, and NS mixing uniformity. Six 1.5-L bags of purified water were produced. Two of these bags were mixed with sodium chloride to make 0.9 percent NS solution. These two bags were returned to Earth to test for compliance with USP requirements. On-orbit results indicated that all of the experimental success criteria were met with the exception of the salt concentration. Problems with a large air bubble in the first bag of purified water resulted in a slightly concentrated saline solution of 117 percent of the target value of 0.9 g/L. The second bag had an inadequate amount of salt premeasured into the mixing bag resulting in a slightly deficient salt concentration of 93.8 percent of the target value. The USP permits a range from 95 to 105 percent of the target value. The testing plans for improvements for an operational system are also presented.

McQuillen, John B.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Guidelines for assessment and control of noise

There is an obvious need for guidelines and standards with respect to what intensities and durations of noise exposure is considered incompatible with the health and well-being of the people exposed. These guidelines would presumably be useful for the zoning of land areas to avoid overexposure of people to environmental noise and for legislative-judicial adjudication of liabilities for possible damages to individuals and groups from exposure to noise. A number of guidelines for noise exposure were promulgated by various governmental agencies for these purposes. Partly because of the need for an integrated and consistent program of noise control for all elements of the government, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established. In addition to previously issuing some specific documents regarding safe noise exposure limits, the EPA joined several Federal operating and regulatory agencies in issuing guidelines for considering noise in land use planning and control. Government guideline documents, as well as some issued by non-government agencies, are examined. Also, newly proposed guidelines for noise in residential areas, and the scientific basis for these guidelines, are presented.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Advancing Aeronautics: A Decision Framework for Selecting Research Agendas

Publicly funded research has long played a role in the development of aeronautics, ranging from foundational research on airfoils to development of the air-traffic control system. Yet more than a century after the research and development of successful controlled, sustained, heavier-than-air flight vehicles, there are questions over the future of aeronautics research. The field of aeronautics is relatively mature, technological developments within it have become more evolutionary, and funding decisions are sometimes motivated by the continued pursuit of these evolutionary research tracks rather than by larger factors. These developments raise questions over whether public funding of aeronautics research continues to be appropriate or necessary and at what levels. Tightened federal budgets and increasing calls to address other public demands make these questions sharper still. To help it address the questions of appropriate directions for publicly funded aeronautics research, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) asked the RAND Corporation to assess the elements required to develop a strategic view of aeronautics research opportunities; identify candidate aeronautic grand challenges, paradigms, and concepts; outline a framework for evaluating them; and exercise the framework as an example of how to use it. Accordingly, this research seeks to address these questions: What aeronautics research should be supported by the U.S. government? What compelling and desirable benefits drive government-supported research? How should the government--especially NASA--make decisions about which research to support? Advancing aeronautics involves broad policy and decisionmaking challenges. Decisions involve tradeoffs among competing perspectives, uncertainties, and informed judgment.

AERONAUTICS↗
NASA NTRS1980

Government financial support for civil aircraft research, technology and development in four European countries and the United States

Data on the levels of government financial support for civil aircraft airframe and engine (CAAE) research and technology (R&T) in the United States and Europe (United Kingdom, West Germany, France and The Netherlands) and means of comparing these levels are provided. Data are presented for the years 1974-1977. European R&T expenditure data were obtained through visits to each of the four European countries, to the Washington office of the European Communities, and by a search of applicable literature. CAAE R&T expenditure data for the United States were obtained from NASA and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Chandler, B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of NASA’s Nuclear Flight Safety Program to Meet Changing Needs

Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.

NASA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Nuclear Flight Safety – New Protocols for Safety and Mission Assurance

Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. The recently-completed revision of the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document for nuclear flight safety is a key step in the evolution of NASA policy and practice in this area. This paper will briefly describe the more significant changes in the new NASA NPR.

Donald Helton↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evolution of NASA’s Nuclear Flight Safety Program to Infuse Risk Leadership and Assurance Framework Concepts

In recent years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.

Matthew J. Forsbacka↗