Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “programmatic requirements”

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 NTRS2019

History of NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7)

NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7) from materials and assembled articles for spaceflight has evolved since the Apollo program for over 50 years to meet various habitable spacecraft nonmetallic programmatic requirements. Now mandated by NASA STD-6016A, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft, all nonmetallic materials used in habitable flight compartments, with the exception of ceramics, metal oxides, inorganic glasses, and materials used in sealed containers, must meet the offgassing requirements in NASA-STD-6001B Test 7. This manuscript presents the history of Test 7, beginning with the Apollo spacecraft nonmetallic materials selection guidelines and test requirements in 1967, in which tests were performed in mostly oxygen atmospheres. It progresses through Skylab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station nonmetals testing, and acceptance requirements with milder test environments. This review of the history of Test 7 presents the reader with a perspective on the development and changes undergone since inception to the present. Related NASA standard tests (some now former, discontinued, combined, or supplemental) including Test 6, Odor Assessment, Test 16, Determination of Offgassed Products from Assembled Articles, and Test 12, Total Spacecraft Cabin Offgassing, are discussed in context

Greene, Benjamin↗
NASA NTRS2019

History of NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7)

NASA's Determination of Offgassed Products (Test 7) from materials and assembled articles for spaceflight has evolved since the Apollo program for over 50 years to meet various habitable spacecraft non-metallic programmatic requirements. Now mandated by NASA-STD-6016B Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft, all nonmetallic materials used in habitable flight compartments,with the exception of ceramics, metal oxides, inorganic glasses, and materials used in sealed containers must meet the offgassing requirements of in NASA-STD-6001B Test 7. This manuscript presents the history of Test 7 beginning with the Apollo spacecraft nonmetallic materials selection guidelines and test requirements in 1967

Greene, Benjamin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

History of NASA’s Odor Assessment (Test 6)

NASA's Odor Assessment (Test 6) for nonmetallic materials and assembled articles for spacecraft has evolved since the Apollo program in 1966 to meet various habitable spacecraft nonmetallic programmatic requirements. The purpose of Test 6 is to determine if the odor from a material or assembled article is objectionable or revolting on an odor-characteristic scale of 0 to 4. Samples of the toxicity-screened test atmosphere from a conditioned specimen container are administered to an Odor Panel of qualified human research subject volunteers using a syringe and mask, and are assigned a scored odor characteristic of undetectable (0), barely detectable (1), easily detectable (2), objectionable (3), or revolting (4). The odor from a material or assembled article is objectionable or revolting if an average rating of 2.5 or higher is assigned by an Odor Panel. This manuscript presents the history of Test 6, beginning with the Apollo spacecraft nonmetallic materials selection guidelines and test requirements from 1966, in which tests were performed in oxygen atmospheres, and follows the odor test through Skylab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and Orion nonmetals testing, and acceptance requirements.

Benjamin Greene↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory: Hypersonic Testing Capabilities

A description of the NASA Langley Research Center’s Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory (LAL) will be presented in the paper, along with descriptions and details of the facility test techniques and recent upgrades. The LAL consists of three hypersonic blow-down wind tunnels covering Mach numbers of 6 and 10 and unit Reynolds number ranges of 0.5 to 8.3 million per foot as well as a 60-ft Vacuum Sphere Test Chamber. LAL facilities are used to study and define the aerodynamic performance and aeroheating characteristics of flight vehicle concepts. Data collected in the facilities have been used for design and optimization, anchoring computational predictions, generation of aerodynamic databases and design of Thermal Protection Systems. Over the years modifications and enhancements have been made to the facility hardware and instrumentation to increase efficiency, data quality, capabilities and reliability to better meet the programmatic requirements. Recent utilization information illustrates the need for the capabilities associated with these facilities. Recent test programs include the Space Shuttle Program, Crew Exploration Vehicle/Orion/Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HIFiRE), Mars Science Laboratory, Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator System (HIADS) and X-51 among others and usage has been split between NASA, Commercial Crew, Department of Defense and private company programs. Plans for future improvements to the facility infrastructure and instrumentation will also be presented.

Karen Berger↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Parametric Study of the Forward Attachment Geometry for the Space Launch System Next Generation Booster

Launch vehicle transonic buffet environments can generate large dynamic structural loads and vibratory responses. For the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle, the highest transonic buffet environments have been observed in the multibody region between the core and solid rocket boosters, particularly downstream of the booster forward attachment. The buffet environment is particularly sensitive to the outer mold line (OML) of the forward attachment, and even relatively minor geometry changes can have large impacts on buffet and other aerodynamic environments. The SLS program is redesigning the booster for the Block 2 vehicle to support updated mission goals. This redesign necessitated changes in the forward attachment geometry, which raised concerns about the buffet and vibroacoustic environments. A preliminary study was conducted that developed multiple forward attachment geometries that satisfied the programmatic requirements, but the aerodynamic environment impacts were unclear. In March 2022, a wind-tunnel test was conducted at the NASA Ames 11- by 11-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel to study these environments generated from each of the configurations in order to select the most viable candidate. This paper will discuss this test campaign, the results from the parametric study, as well as general observations regarding OML features that impact the buffet environment. Buffet environments will be presented and compared for each configuration and comparisons presented where applicable.

buffet↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Parametric Study of the Forward Attachment Geometry for the Space Launch System Next Generation Booster

Launch vehicle transonic buffet environments can generate large dynamic structural loads and vibratory responses. For the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle, the highest transonic buffet environments have been observed in the multibody region between the core and solid rocket boosters, particularly downstream of the booster forward attachment. The buffet environment is particularly sensitive to the outer mold line (OML) of the forward attachment, and even relatively minor geometry changes can have large impacts on buffet and other aerodynamic environments. The SLS program is redesigning the booster for the Block 2 vehicle to support updated mission goals. This redesign necessitated changes in the forward attachment geometry, which raised concerns about the buffet and vibroacoustic environments. A preliminary study was conducted that developed multiple forward attachment geometries that satisfied the programmatic requirements, but the aerodynamic environment impacts were unclear. In March 2022, a wind-tunnel test was conducted at the NASA Ames 11- by 11-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel to study these environments generated from each of the configurations in order to select the most viable candidate. This paper will discuss this test campaign, the results from the parametric study, as well as general observations regarding OML features that impact the buffet environment. Buffet environments will be presented and compared for each configuration and comparisons presented where applicable.

buffet↗
NASA NTRS2016

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine the commercial providers transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted Hazard Reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100 percent of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) model does not support the nature of the Commercial Crew Program. To that end, NASA SMA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance (RBA) process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications. This paper will describe the evolution of the CCP Mission Assurance process from the beginning of the Program to its current incarnation. Topics to be covered include a short history of the CCP; the development of the Programmatic mission assurance requirements; the current safety review process; a description of the RBA process and its products and ending with a description of the Shared Assurance Model.

Commercial Crew Program↗
NASA NTRS2014

The NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Shared Assurance Model for Safety

NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (nongovernmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA is how to determine the commercial provider's transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements while at the same time allowing the provider the flexibility to demonstrate compliance. This will be accomplished through the use of Shared Assurance and Risk Based Assessment by NASA thus shifting more responsibility to the Provider. This model will be the focus of this presentation.

Programmatic safety requirements↗
NASA NTRS1972

Navigation requirements for advanced deep space missions.

Study of the navigation system requirements and capabilities for potential advanced deep space missions of the 1978 to 1990 era. Following a review of these potential missions, the mission-by-mission assessments of the critical navigation system requirements for a mission set selected are presented. The requirements are related to subsystem research and development implications and are used to formulate recommendations for future developments in navigation systems. Programmatic directions required for deep space navigation are presented.

Friedman, L. D.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Payload transportation system study

A standard size set of shuttle payload transportation equipment was defined that will substantially reduce the cost of payload transportation and accommodate a wide range of payloads with minimum impact on payload design. The system was designed to accommodate payload shipments between the level 4 payload integration sites and the launch site during the calendar years 1979-1982. In addition to defining transportation multi-use mission support equipment (T-MMSE) the mode of travel, prime movers, and ancillary equipment required in the transportation process were also considered. Consistent with the STS goals of low cost and the use of standardized interfaces, the transportation system was designed to commercial grade standards and uses the payload flight mounting interfaces for transportation. The technical, cost, and programmatic data required to permit selection of a baseline system of MMSE for intersite movement of shuttle payloads were developed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1974

Zero-gravity atmospheric Cloud Physics Experiment Laboratory; Programmatics report

The programmatics effort included comprehensive analyses in four major areas: (1) work breakdown structure, (2) schedules, (3) costs, and (4) supporting research and technology. These analyses are discussed in detail in the following sections which identify and define the laboratory project development schedule, cost estimates, funding distributions and supporting research and technology requirements. All programmatics analyses are correlated among themselves and with the technical analyses by means of the work breakdown structure which serves as a common framework for program definition. In addition, the programmatic analyses reflect the results of analyses and plans for reliability, safety, test, and maintenance and refurbishment.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1986

Space Station - An integrated approach to operational logistics support

Development of an efficient and cost effective operational logistics system for the Space Station will require logistics planning early in the program's design and development phase. This paper will focus on Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Program techniques and their application to the Space Station program design, production and deployment phases to assure the development of an effective and cost efficient operational logistics system. The paper will provide the methodology and time-phased programmatic steps required to establish a Space Station ILS Program that will provide an operational logistics system based on planned Space Station program logistics support.

Hosmer, G. J.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Forward Contamination of Ocean Worlds: A Stakeholder Conversation

A fundamental requirement for space missions designed to touch “potential habitats” is the single number 10−4, the allowable probability of a single Earth organism contaminating the potential habitat. Many aspects of a mission that affect its complexity and cost – hardware design and manufacture, assembly and test, and mission operations – are driven by this value, so it is important, on the threshold of an era of exploring ocean worlds, to have confidence in it. Yet despite its long pedigree and occasional reviews, we find that the current requirement lacks programmatically defensible justification. At issue are three weaknesses: 1) microbial biology, in particular the science of extremophiles, is a rapidly changing field; 2) forward contamination is both a scientific and an ethical issue, yet no ethics-based conversation is apparent within policy-setting circles; 3) because of these two factors, policy-setting cannot be static. We review the history of the requirement; how the evolving understanding of biology could drive it up or down; how the forward-contamination hazard relates to risk-management practice and to the ethics profession; and how a contemporary stakeholder conversation could adapt lessons already learned by other fields.

Waltemathe, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2019

Radiation Hardness Assurance: Evolving for NewSpace

During the past decade, government agencies, private companies and academic institutions, have launched hundreds of small satellites into space, with dramatically expanded dependence on advanced commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies and systems required for mission success. While the radiation effects vulnerabilities of components within small satellites are the same as those of their larger, traditional relatives, revised approaches are needed for risk management because of differences in technical requirements and programmatic resources. While moving to COTS components and systems may reduce direct costs and procurement lead times, it undermines many cost-reduction strategies used for conventional radiation hardness assurance (RHA). Limited resources are accompanied by a lack of radiation testing and analysis, which can pose significant risks. Small satellites have benefited from short mission durations in low Earth orbits with respect to their radiation response, but as mission objectives grow and become reliant on advanced technologies operating for longer and in harsher environments, requirements need to reflect the changing scope without hindering developers that provide new capabilities. In this course we suggest RHA strategies that engineers and scientists can apply to a wide range of aerospace systems, including constellations, with a focus on how to manage aggressive system scaling for smaller platforms.

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA)↗
NASA NTRS2019

Radiation Hardness Assurance: Evolving for NewSpace

During the past decade, numerous small satellites have been launched into space, with dramatically expanded dependence on advanced commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies and systems required for mission success. While the radiation effects vulnerabilities of small satellites are the same as those of their larger, traditional relatives, revised approaches are needed for risk management because of differences in technical requirements and programmatic resources. While moving to COTS components and systems may reduce direct costs and procurement lead times, it undermines many cost-reduction strategies used for conventional radiation hardness assurance (RHA). Limited resources are accompanied by a lack of radiation testing and analysis, which can pose significant risks - or worse, be neglected altogether. Small satellites have benefited from short mission durations in low Earth orbits with respect to their radiation response, but as mission objectives grow and become reliant on advanced technologies operating for longer and in harsher environments, requirements need to reflect the changing scope without hindering developers that provide new capabilities.

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA)↗
NASA NTRS2019

Radiation Hardness Assurance: Evolving for NewSpace

During the past decade, numerous small satellites have been launched into space, with dramatically expanded dependence on advanced commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies and systems required for mission success. While the radiation effects vulnerabilities of small satellites are the same as those of their larger, traditional relatives, revised approaches are needed for risk management because of differences in technical requirements and programmatic resources. While moving to COTS components and systems may reduce direct costs and procurement lead times, it undermines many cost-reduction strategies used for conventional radiation hardness assurance (RHA). Limited resources are accompanied by a lack of radiation testing and analysis, which can pose significant risks—or worse, be neglected altogether. Small satellites have benefited from short mission durations in low Earth orbits with respect to their radiation response, but as mission objectives grow and become reliant on advanced technologies operating for longer and in harsher environments, requirements need to reflect the changing scope without hindering developers that provide new capabilities.

Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA)↗
NASA NTRS1976

A cost and utility analysis of NIM/CAMAC standards and equipment for shuttle payload data acquisition and control systems. Volume 1: Summary

The cost effectiveness of utilizing the Nuclear Instrumentation Modular (NIM) and the Computer Automated Measurement Control (CAMAC) equipment for Spacelab payload instrumentation was determined. Representative shuttle sortie payloads were analyzed for applicability and commonality. Modification of NIM/CAMAC equipment was analyzed for its suitability in Spacelab environments and to determine the cost. NIM/CAMAC equipment usage requirements for Spacelab payloads were converted to pool size requirements and time-phased equipment procurement requirements. A programmatic estimate of the pool equipment costs and a management plan were prepared for the pool concept. The implementation and impact of CAMAC software were assessed.

Source record↗