SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk Analysis Mars Sample Return”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

58 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Case Study of Meteoroid Fluence on a Mars Sample Return Mission

This paper presents results from an analysis to assess the fluence of meteoroids on the Mars Sample Return Campaign Micrometeoroid Protection System (MMPS) and probability of damage to the Earth Entry System Thermal Protection System (TPS). Results are presented for the mission Outbound trajectory from Earth to Mars. The MEM3 meteoroid environment model was used for the assessment. Results are presented showing the reduction in fluence on cube faces and on the MMPS that can be achieved by selection of an anti-velocity orientation of the MMPS. A methodology is presented that determines the cumulative fluence on the MMPS using the MEM3 meteoroid fluxes and the spacecraft attitude profile over the trajectory. Resulting distributions of fluence over impact velocity, angle, and mass are presented. The fluence results are used to establish velocity-angle scenarios for hydrocode simulation and to assess net damage fluence to the TPS. Example tables containing Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics Code (SPHC) simulation scenarios as well as hypothetical hydrocode simulation scenarios for illustration purposes are presented. The tables present the resulting net damaging fluence to the TPS for each scenario and the total across the scenarios. Additionally, examples of CTH hydrocode simulation are included, demonstrating their use for determining critical impactor across the impactor parameter space, and damage of impactors that penetrate the MMPS.

Micrometeoroid↗

NASA NTRS2020

Mars Ascent Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion Configuration

As part of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign, two Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) configurations have been designed in parallel. Each ascent vehicle configuration has a different propulsion system which ultimately leads to two unique vehicle designs. As part of a Preliminary Architecture Assessment (PAA), these vehicle designs were developed to the same level of maturity in order to inform the selection of one of the vehicles as the point of departure design for the campaign. The selection will be made in November 2019. The initial MSR architecture called for a hybrid-based propulsion MAV. This type of propulsion system calls for a solid wax motor that would utilize liquid MON-25 as an oxidizer. Hybrid rocket propulsion allows for more flexibility than traditional solid or liquid propulsion options, and typically benefits from the advantages of both. A hybrid motor can be throttled and shut down easily, and avoids significant risk in manufacturing and handling. On a theoretical level, hybrid motors perform at a higher specific impulse (Isp) than solid motors. The primary disadvantage of hybrid motors comes from additional complexity and significantly less flight heritage and low Technology Readiness Level (TRL). This paper describes the design of the hybrid propulsion configuration. An additional paper will be published describing the design of the solid propulsion configuration1. The hybrid propulsion configuration MAV was developed in 2019 by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in association with NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It features a Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) design with an SP7A solid wax fuel and MON-25 liquid oxidizer. The liquid portion of the vehicle allows for a Liquid Injection Thrust Vector Controller (LITVC) as well as hypergolic propellant additives for ignition. The vehicle was designed to deliver approximately 0.31kg of Martian geological samples to a circular orbit at Mars of 343km at a 25o inclination. Although hybrid propulsion in general has been used on launch vehicles in the past, the integrated vehicle subsystems that operate in conjunction with these propulsion elements do not typically operate in a Martian environment, which in this application can get as cold as -40oC. The PAA advanced the maturity of these subsystems by performing detailed design and analysis on the vehicle with respect to structures and mechanisms, Guidance/Navigation/Control (GNC) systems, avionics, Reaction Control System (RCS), LITVC, thermal environments, and advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). This paper will summarize the results of these studies.

Yaghoubi, Darius↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Advances in the U.S. in Ablative TPS for In-situ Exploration of Giant Planets

The Decadal Survey report released [1] prioritizes Uranus as the highest priority Flagship class mission to be explored with an orbiter and a probe and it also recommended Saturn Probe under New Frontiers mission class. Thermal protection system (TPS) is essential for Uranus and Saturn probe missions. The two cardinal requirements are that it must be fail-safe and yet be mass efficient. The Decadal Survey report also pointed out the readiness of heatshield for extreme entry environment technology (HEEET) at TRL 6 for probe missions at Gas Giants. HEEET relies on 3-D weaving and is shown to be a robust and mass efficient TPS through ground testing and analysis. HEEET was matured to TRL 6 in 2019. HEEET was reported at the Ice Giant Workshop in 2019 at Marseille. Since 2019, significant advances have been made primarily because of Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission. MSR baselined 3-D Woven TPS as its heatshield for the earth entry system. MSR earth entry system (EES) requirements and the resulting heatshield/TPS requirements are most stringent of all entry missions. This is a result of backward contamination protection which classifies MSR as a “restricted class 5” mission to safeguard the accidental release of potentially hazardous Mars Sample into Earth’s atmosphere. Complex requirements for the heatshield start with micro-meteor impact tolerance followed by the requirement for steep entry to minimize the size of the impact footprint which results in extreme heating. The heatshield is part of the impact attenuation system. The EES architecture does not use a parachute and is designed to tolerate impact loads. Hence heatshield TPS selection and design becomes one of the key challenges. After completion of the HEEET technology maturation in 2019, IRAD efforts focused on assessing the 3-D Woven family of TPS to MSR EES. After nearly two years of evaluation of alternate TPS such as carbon phenolic, C-C hot structure, PICA, and 3-D woven family of TPS, a single layer 3-D woven TPS derived from the dual-layer HEEET was down selected and is currently the baseline. A new loom capable of weaving the single-layer 3-D woven preform at 80” wide has been designed, assembled and is currently on the verge of weaving the MSR EES TPS. During the HEEET maturation and the follow-on development, the single-layer TPS has been tested at extreme heating conditions. As a result, single layer TPS was recommended and evaluated during the Planetary Mission Concept Studies funded by NASA in preparation for the Decadal committee. In addition, in anticipation of Saturn mission proposals, single layer was evaluated as well. Aerocapture can reduce the trip time, also allow bigger payload fraction and in addition, it allows for the possibility of probe delivery once the spacecraft is in orbit. This can lead to obtaining both in-situ data as well as data from orbit simultaneously. Since Aerocapture depletes energy/velocity, probe delivery from orbit reduces the demand on TPS. Aerocapture was mentioned in the Decadal Study report as ready for implementation, but due to perceived risk it is not adopted by the mission designers. Establishing TPS readiness for aerocapture missions will be addressed. Going one step beyond aerocapture is aerogravity assist if fast return is the goal. Recent studies [4] looked at aerogravity assist and the TPS readiness. This talk will highlight both aerocapture and aerogravity assist from a TPS perspective. The main objective of this proposed talk is to present a comprehensive picture of the SOA TPS technology including recent developments. The talk will highlight advances in manufacturing, results from the Decadal White Papers, PMCS and other studies, and aerocapture and aerogravity assist that could play a role in the near or far term in-situ exploration.

E. Venkatapathy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Does Collection Time Bias the Ecology of Cleanroom Air Samples?

Microbial monitoring of astromaterials collections has taken on increased importance with the return of biologically sensitive samples from the asteroids Ryugu and Bennu and the initiation of the Mars Sample Return Program. Terrestrial bacteria and fungi can alter the mineralogy and organic composition of our collections causing irreversible contamination of pristine samples and increasing the risk of false positives for life detection measurements. NASA has conducted routine microbial monitoring of its existing collections since 20181. Initial monitoring focused on surface samples collected with foam swabs. Although, airborne microbiology is often decoupled from surface microbiology in the built environment2 culture-based air sampling techniques like impactors were not compliant with existing contamination control requirements. Bringing organic rich media, gelatin or liquids into curation cleanrooms presents an unacceptable risk to pristine samples. In 2022 NASA purchased a materials complaint air sampler and began collecting air samples from the cleanrooms in addition to surface samples3. The new instrument uses an electret filter to collect samples that are suitable for cultivating organisms or for direct DNA sequencing. Preliminary DNA sequencing results appeared to indicate that longer sampling times biased the microbial community in favor of hearty, spore-forming bacteria3. We present the results of a study comparing overnight sampling (17 hours) to short (1 hour) sampling of unoccupied curation cleanrooms. The results will help us optimize our monitoring protocols and develop a more detailed inventory of the ecology of astromaterials curation cleanrooms. Methods: We analyzed 72 paired air samples from six different cleanrooms including the meteorite processing lab (ISO 7 equivalent, 16 samples), the lunar lab (ISO 6 equivalent, 10 samples), the stardust lab (ISO 5 equivalent 14 samples), the OSIRIS-REx lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 12 samples), the Hayabusa2 lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 14 samples), and the Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent, 6 samples). All the samples were collected with an InnovaPrep Bobcat air sampler operating at a sampling rate of 200 L/min. The sampler operates for 5 minutes out of every 20 minute period. Half of the samples were collected by filtering 3,000L (15 min. of active sampling) of air across an electret filter for one hour. The rest of the samples were collected by filtering approximately 51,000 L air across the filter overnight (~17 hours, 255 min. of active sampling). Cells were eluted from the filter using 6-7 ml of pressurized 0.15% tween 20 in PBS (phosphate buffered saline). This liquid was used to cultivate bacteria according to previously published methods1,4,5 and for DNA extraction and next generation sequencing. DNA was extracted with a Qiagen MagAttract PowerMicrobiome kit6. To identify bacteria and archaea, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using Earth Microbiome primers for the V4 region 7. The amplified DNA was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq using a V3 reagent kit. The resulting sequences were processed using DADA2 and QIIME2 as implemented on the EDGE bioinformatics platform8–10. Results: Only two of the 72 samples had no amplifiable DNA. Amplified DNA concentrations ranged from 2.67 – 0.272 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the 1 hour samples was 0.770 ± 0.368 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the overnight samples was 0.877 ± 0.434 ng/µl. On average the overnight samples had slightly more sequences (58,960 vs. 59,456) and ASV’s (amplicon sequence variants) (60 vs 64.5) than the one hour samples, but these differences are not statistically significant. The most abundant ASV in every sample mapped to the genus Cupravidus. ASV’s mapping to the genuses Bacillus, Schlegelella, Thermus, and Staphylococcus were also common. Discussion and Future Work: Alpha diversity statistics like Shannon Entropy and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity are used to describe the diversity of organisms in a single sample. If a longer sampling time was biasing the data, we would expect to see a change in these diversity statistics vs. sample time. However, we did not observe this in our data. The median Shannon entropy was slightly higher for the overnight samples (3.773 vs 3.611) as was the Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (4.042 vs 3.596), but both values were within a standard deviation of each other for the two sampling times (Fig. 1). It is unlikely, that the longer sampling time is introducing bias into our data. We do observe a significant decrease in diversity when comparing the air samples by lab. The Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent) has a lower median number of ASV’s (45.5) than the other labs (62). Median values for Shannon Entropy (3.717 vs. 3.430) and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (3.796 vs. 3.548) are also lower for Genesis, but those values are with one standard deviation of each other for the different sampling times. This is consistent with previous culture-based results suggesting that the environment in cleanrooms tends to select for a core group of organisms capable of surviving under dry, low nutrient, conditions. The presence of the ASV’s mapping to Cupravidus and Thermus in our sequencing blanks and controls suggests that several of the most common organisms in our samples represent contaminants from the reagents used to perform the DNA extractions and sequencing. Further work is needed to identify these contaminants, remove them from our data and recalculate the diversity statistics. This is a systematic error. Therefore, we do not expect removing the sequencing contaminants to change our conclusions. Longer air sample collection times appear to result in slightly higher diversity and do not bias the results towards “hardy” bacteria like spore-formers. Based on these preliminary results we conclude that sampling at least 3,000 liters of air is sufficient to capture the microbial diversity of cleanrooms, and that air samples can also be collected overnight without negatively impacting diversity. These results allow us to be flexible when designing microbial monitoring plans so that they do not interfere with routine lab activity. References: 1. Regberg, A. B. et al. 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2018). 2. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USP General Chapter <1116> (2013). 3. Regberg, A. B., et al. 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2023). 4. Regberg, A. B. et al. 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference ( 2022). 5. Davis, R. E.,et al. 50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2019). 6. Qiagen. MagAttract® PowerMicrobiome® DNA/RNA EP Kit Handbook. (2018). 7. Walters, W. et al. mSystems 1, (2015). 8. Callahan, B. J. et al. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016). 9. Hall, M. & Beiko, R. G. Microbiome Analysis: Methods and Protocols113–129 (Springer, 2018). 10. Philipson, C. et al. Bio-Protoc. 7, e2622 (2017).

A. B. Regberg↗