Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “battery failure databank”

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.

544 records · Page 31
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance of a Regenerative Fuel Cell System for the Lunar Surface

Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.

Kerrigan Cain↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance of a Regenerative Fuel Cell System for the Lunar Surface

Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.

Kerrigan Cain↗
NASA NTRS1962

Manned Lunar Landing Via Rendezvous

In any mission description, the vehicles, the flight profiles, and the astrionics hardware to im- plement the mission are all tightly interwoven things. A final result evolves only after many iterations to the solution are made. This paper will describe one of these iterations in the Saturn C-5 Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach to the Manned Lunar Landing Program. Since the iter- ation to be described in an nthone, there exists some basis for the hope that the perturbation from the final solution is small. This paper is not concerned with the landing itself, but only with those operations leading to injection of the space craft into the lunar trans- fer trajectory. However, as is to be expected, it is the target conditions which set the pace for the overall operation. The entire operation must be sized to culminate at a time and place which places the lunar target in an attainable position. The procedure would call for a burst of activity lasting over a relatively short time as compared to the long and extensive preparations leading up to it. The activity must be aimed at the opening of the lunar "launch window". Figure 1 illustrates the variation in the velocity increment required to launch a vehicle into a lunar transfer trajectory from a 485 kilometer earth orbit. The minima are at irregularly spaced intervals and are a func- tion of the inclination of the lunar and the earth satellite planes and of the position of the moon in its orbit around the earth (i. e. , the day of the month). In an operations analysis these spacings will influence the number of vehicles on the launch pad (primary and back-up) , their state of readi- ness, the firing rate, and also the flight profile to be chosen. Whether it is decided to go by "con- necting" or by "tanking" mode, the objective must be to get the spacecraft in the launch ready state at the opening of one of these launch windows. It may be desired that the first vehicle be capable of remaining in a functionally capable state even after bridging one or more of the gaps between the windows. This consideration will influence the design of the vehicles as well as the operational modes to be designed into the flight control hard- ware. For example, a sleep switch may be de- sirable from the standpoint of savings in battery we ight.

LUNAR LANDING↗
NASA NTRS2026

Machine Learning for Predicting Team Functioning in HERA Missions

Team functioning is integral to success in future long term space exploration missions. Proactively detecting declines in team functioning can mitigate conflict and ensure mission success. This project developed a speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that unobtrusively predicts degradation in team functioning, including performance and cohesion, in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5. The AI system conducted automated analysis of the prosodic (tone of voice) and linguistic (language content) components of speech, modeling interpersonal dynamics at both the turn-taking and day-wide levels. We investigated team functioning via observing structured interactions (i.e., multi-mission space exploration vehicle-extra vehicular activity [MMSEV-EVA], team interaction battery [TIB]) and unstructured interactions before the MMSEV-EVA task. We developed machine learning models to predict team functioning (objective task accuracy, self reported team efficacy and self reported team cohesion) by analyzing OpenSmile acoustic features, linguistic descriptors extracted via the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) dictionary, and semantic embeddings. In the TIB, static models using logistic regression and random forests were not able to predict task accuracy, but predicted team efficacy and cohesion during both the decision making and relational tasks to a moderate level (60-70%). Majority voting on the individual turns to predict day long team efficacy further increased accuracies (70-80%). Finally, long short-term memory (LSTM) models showed the best performance across all variables (80-91%), including task performance. In the MMSEV-EVA, static models achieved an accuracy of 60% with majority voting, which increased to 80% through the incorporation of mission day as a variable, accounting for the learning effect. A key finding across both tasks was the "team-dependent" nature of these interactions; models achieved much higher accuracy when trained on prior days of the same team's data rather than attempting to generalize across entirely different teams, with even 1-2 days of prior data per team achieving 5-15% improvement over team-independent models. In addition, the incorporation of pre-task data from the same team also improves model performance, e.g., incorporating data from the decision-making task of the TIB, which preceded the relational task, improved the prediction of team efficacy and cohesion during the latter. We compared model performance when trained on machine-generated data compared to data that had been further corrected by human annotators. Overall, models trained on human-corrected data exhibited a modest improvement in performance, particularly when acoustic features were used. We found no significant correlation between word error rate (WER) and model accuracy (r(55) = -0.08, p = 0.51), but model’s accuracy was significantly higher for medium/high quality transcription (0.74 (SD = 0.48)) compared to the low-quality group (0.64 (SD = 0.36)) (t(63)=2.82, p = 0.006). Based on these, several design recommendation emerge, that could inform Standards at NASA. Models predicting team functioning should incorporate at least one to two days of historical interaction data, include brief pre-task discussions, and explicitly model temporal learning effects, especially for longer operational tasks. Minimum quality standards for automated speech-processing pipelines are needed, given the performance gains observed with manually corrected acoustic data. Finally, systems should leverage both acoustic features and language embeddings in complementary ways, with modality choices and fusion strategies tailored to mission context, task demands, and data quality requirements.

Shrivatsa Mishra↗