SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “capabilities”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Capabilities Data Analysis: An Integrated Approach

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is necessary to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for human sustainability on the lunar surface, as well as on eventual missions to send humans to Mars. Guided by Space Policy Directive-1 and through the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis program, the advancement and development of technologies on the lunar surface will be leveraged towards technologies and knowledge needed for humans to successfully and safely go to Mars and return. In order to understand the capability needs for lunar and Mars missions, the Capabilities Integration Team identifies integration approaches and overlaps between missions to develop strategies for advancing key capabilities that support those needs. Since 2013, the Capabilities Integration Team has reached out to subject matter experts, principal technologists, and system capability leadership teams throughout NASA to gather information about the critical technologies and capabilities needed in order to support the lunar and Mars exploration missions. To properly gather this data, the Capabilities Integration Team used a capability-driven approach to identify gaps between the current state of the art and the needs of proposed exploration missions, as well as activities that may close those gaps. These inputs are used to shape technology investment strategies and are incorporated in missions to the lunar and Mars surfaces. Data collected included: gap definitions and identifying information; gap closure information and metrics for success; mapping of gaps to elements of NASA's Artemis program and future exploration architecture. . The data collected, specifically from the technology gap list, has been used to support the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processes, as well as the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Technology Plans. This paper discusses the integration approach used by the Capabilities Integration Team to identify current capability gaps for the Moon to Mars architecture and what capabilities exist or must be developed to support those architecture needs. In addition, this paper also details the performance, gap characterization, current capability gap closure opportunities, and risk impacts towards Artemis, and the overall Moon to Mars architecture.

Gregory Benjamin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Predictive Simulation Capability Development for Crater Evolution and Ejecta in Continuum/Rarefied Flows

As part of the Game Changing Development (GCD) Program, funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), the development of simulation capability for the prediction of extra-terrestrial Plume Surface Interaction (PSI) environments has been undertaken by the Fluid Dynamics Branch at NASA/MSFC. The Predictive Simulation Capability (PSC) Element is focused on creating simulation capability for the reliable and accurate prediction of PSI in Martian (~650 Pa) and Lunar (vacuum) ambient environments. In addition to the predictive simulation capability, the GCD Program also contains a companion Ground Testing Element for development of focused datasets for validation of predictive capability as well as a Flight-focused Instrumentation Element. The focus of this paper is to provide an overview and a brief status on one area of capability development through this GCD PSI project - capturing the effects of mixed continuum/rarefied flow on crater development and ejecta sheets. This includes both capability enhancements and maturation of the predictive tool, Loci/GGFS, into a production capable tool as well as validation of the tool against PSI data in Martian and Lunar environments. There are six newly developed capabilities that will be production ready by the end of the fiscal year. Newly developed capabilities must first be verified prior to being production ready, and this process includes capability demonstration, solution verification, and performance evaluation. An overview of the newly developed capabilities with respect to several test cases, including cratering simulations of the Apollo Lunar Module, will be presented. Several validation analyses have been performed to validate in Martian and more Lunar-like environments, including simulations of cratering from a subsonic flow test at Planetary Aeolian Lab (PAL) conducted in a Martian-like environment and pre-test cratering predictions of Physics Focused Ground Test (PFGT) tests planned to be performed in Martian-like and more Lunar-like environments. An overview of these validation analyses as it pertains to the capability development will be presented.

Andrew Weaver↗

NASA NTRS2016

Graphical Visualization of Human Exploration Capabilities

NASA's pioneering space strategy will require advanced capabilities to expand the boundaries of human exploration on the Journey to Mars (J2M). The Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) architecture serves as a framework to identify critical capabilities that need to be developed and tested in order to enable a range of human exploration destinations and missions. Agency-wide System Maturation Teams (SMT) are responsible for the maturation of these critical exploration capabilities and help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the EMC-identified capabilities. Systems Capability Organization Reporting Engine boards (SCOREboards) were developed to integrate the SMT data sets into cohesive human exploration capability stories that can be used to promote dialog and communicate NASA's exploration investments. Each SCOREboard provides a graphical visualization of SMT capability development needs that enable exploration missions, and presents a comprehensive overview of data that outlines a roadmap of system maturation needs critical for the J2M. SCOREboards are generated by a computer program that extracts data from a main repository, sorts the data based on a tiered data reduction structure, and then plots the data according to specified user inputs. The ability to sort and plot varying data categories provides the flexibility to present specific SCOREboard capability roadmaps based on customer requests. This paper presents the development of the SCOREboard computer program and shows multiple complementary, yet different datasets through a unified format designed to facilitate comparison between datasets. Example SCOREboard capability roadmaps are presented followed by a discussion of how the roadmaps are used to: 1) communicate capability developments and readiness of systems for future missions, and 2) influence the definition of NASA's human exploration investment portfolio through capability-driven processes. The paper concludes with a description of planned future work to modify the computer program to include additional data and of alternate capability roadmap formats currently under consideration.

Rodgers, Erica M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Critical Ablative TPS Capabilities Sustainment - An Approach to Playing the Long Game

Historically, we have been pound foolish and penny wise for decades, and it is time to reverse this. We present an approach that will maintain critical NASA ablative TPS capabilities through small, sustained, smart and targeted investment. NASA’s ablative TPS history is one of developing new capabilities and letting them atrophy. When needed, there are two options: (1) revive the capability at considerable cost impact or (2) develop an alternate capability with considerable schedule impact. Either of these options have had considerable mission impact. The third alternate is to maintain proven capabilities in a cost effective manner to allow the science community to propose missions with confidence. NASA and DoD have had a working group to periodically assess and make recommendations on at-risk items. This working group typically focuses on raw materials availability. While we agree that at-risk raw materials are an important and necessary part of the overall capability, focus solely on them is not sufficient. Instead, we advocate for a broader focus on the critical “technology capability” that includes not only raw material but also industrial manufacturing and processing capabilities and in-house expertise in design, testing and flight hardware certification. In this proposed presentation, we will highlight a case study related to PICA capability. We will present the rationale for sustaining PICA and HEEET as two minimum essential ablative TPS capabilities for future NASA missions. We will present an approach for how small investment could lead to maintaining mission critical capabilities over a longer period. While HEEET and PICA are NASA unique, the raw material and some of the vendor capabilities involved also support DoD TPS. Hence a partnership between NASA and DoD is recommended for broader benefit.

Ethiraj Venkatapathy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Architecture Robustness in NASA’s Moon to Mars Capability Development – FY23 Data Results

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is important to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for sustainability on the lunar surface and prepare for human missions to Mars. As charged in Space Policy Directive-1, NASA’s Artemis program will advance and develop technologies on the lunar surface that can be leveraged towards a safe and successful human round-trip mission to Mars. NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Capabilities Integration Team (ESDMD CIT) is advancing a continuous effort to identify and map gaps between capabilities and anticipated human spaceflight architecture elements. As upcoming exploration missions approach, the architectural design tradespace increasingly narrows. This paper provides an updated exploration of certain architectural and element design choices for upcoming missions to the Moon and Mars, comparing and contrasting capability gaps and classes of capability gaps that are architecture robust with those that are not. In doing so, we identify certain capabilities as relevant, and therefore robust, across varying architectural possibilities while identifying other capabilities as only applicable to specific architectural pathways. Capabilities that are applicable to multiple elements across the architecture have more architectural breadth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if changes are made to some elements they are mapped to. Correspondingly, capabilities that are applicable to specific elements across the architecture but are necessary under almost any eventuality have more architectural depth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if architecture changes are made. One of the key analyses in this paper is an exploration of architecture robustness as a function of capability area, as defined by the NASA Technology Taxonomy. These results are then evaluated and analyzed across human spaceflight architecture elements to gain a greater understanding of the relationships between exploration capabilities and the systems that will eventually be implemented. Additional insights regarding investment strategies are also considered. General conclusions about these relationships are drawn.

Gaps↗

NASA NTRS2005

Human Exploration Systems and Mobility Capability Roadmap Progress Review

Contents include the following: Capability Roadmap Team. Capability Description and Capability Breakdown Structure. Benefits of the Human Systems and Mobility Capability. Roadmap Process and Approach. Drivers and Assumptions for the whole team. Current State-of-the-Art, Assumptions and Requirements will be covered in the appropriate sections. Capability Presentations by Leads under Roadmap (Repeated for each capability under roadmap). Capability Description, Benefits, Current State-of-the-Art. Capability Requirements and Assumptions. Roadmap for Capability. Capability Readiness Level. Technology Readiness Level. Figures of Merit. Summary of Top Level Capability. Significant Technical Challenges. Summary and Forward Work.

Culbert, Chris↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA's Space Launch System: A Cornerstone Capability for Exploration

Under construction today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS), managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, will provide a robust new capability for human and robotic exploration beyond Earth orbit. The vehicle's initial configuration, scheduled for first launch in 2017, will enable human missions into lunar space and beyond, as well as provide game-changing benefits for space science missions, including offering substantially reduced transit times for conventionally designed spacecraft. From there, the vehicle will undergo a series of block upgrades via an evolutionary development process designed to expedite mission capture as capability increases. The Space Launch System offers multiple benefits for a variety of utilization areas. From a mass-lift perspective, the initial configuration of the vehicle, capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to low Earth orbit (LEO), will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle. Optimized for missions beyond Earth orbit, it will also be the world's only exploration-class launch vehicle capable of delivering 25 t to lunar orbit. The evolved configuration, with a capability of 130 t to LEO, will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown. From a volume perspective, SLS will be compatible with the payload envelopes of contemporary launch vehicles, but will also offer options for larger fairings with unprecedented volume-lift capability. The vehicle's mass-lift capability also means that it offers extremely high characteristic energy for missions into deep space. This paper will discuss the impacts that these factors - mass-lift, volume, and characteristic energy - have on a variety of mission classes, particularly human exploration and space science. It will address the vehicle's capability to enable existing architectures for deep-space exploration, such as those documented in the Global Exploration Roadmap, a capabilities-driven outline for future deep-space voyages created by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, which represents 12 of the world's space agencies. In addition, this paper will detail this new rocket's capability to support missions beyond the human exploration roadmap, including robotic precursor missions to other worlds or uniquely high-mass space operation facilities in Earth orbit. As this paper will explain, the SLS Program is currently building a global infrastructure asset that will provide robust space launch capability to deliver sustainable solutions for exploration.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA Space Launch System: A Cornerstone Capability for Exploration

Under construction today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS), managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, will provide a robust new capability for human and robotic exploration beyond Earth orbit. The vehicle's initial configuration, sched will enable human missions into lunar space and beyond, as well as provide game-changing benefits for space science missions, including offering substantially reduced transit times for conventionally designed spacecraft. From there, the vehicle will undergo a series of block upgrades via an evolutionary development process designed to expedite mission capture as capability increases. The Space Launch System offers multiple benefits for a variety of utilization areas. From a mass-lift perspective, the initial configuration of the vehicle, capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to low Earth orbit (LEO), will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle. Optimized for missions beyond Earth orbit, it will also be the world's only exploration-class launch vehicle capable of delivering 25 t to lunar orbit. The evolved configuration, with a capability of 130 t to LEO, will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown. From a volume perspective, SLS will be compatible with the payload envelopes of contemporary launch vehicles, but will also offer options for larger fairings with unprecedented volume-lift capability. The vehicle's mass-lift capability also means that it offers extremely high characteristic energy for missions into deep space. This paper will discuss the impacts that these factors - mass-lift, volume, and characteristic energy - have on a variety of mission classes, particularly human exploration and space science. It will address the vehicle's capability to enable existing architectures for deep-space exploration, such as those documented in the Global Exploration Roadmap, a capabilities-driven outline for future deep-space voyages created by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, which represents 14 of the world's space agencies. In addition, this paper will detail this new rocket's capability to support missions beyond the human exploration roadmap, including robotic precursor missions to other worlds or uniquely high-mass space operation facilities in Earth orbit. As this paper will explain, the SLS Program is currently building a global infrastructure asset that will provide robust space launch capability to deliver sustainable solutions for exploration.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Payload Stage Capability for Ultra-High Characteristic Energy Missions

The Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle is NASA’s cornerstone capability for a new era of human and robotic exploration of deep space. The unrivalled performance of SLS provides the capability to launch the first woman and next man to walk on the lunar surface and to support development of a sustained human presence in cislunar space, and ultimately human missions to Mars. As an evolvable capability with unique launch performance, the opportunities enabled by SLS also include game-changing benefits for science missions, including probes to the outer solar system and beyond. For the last two years, the SLS Program has worked with the Interstellar Probe team at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory(APL) to provide data that describe how SLS could support a mission that would break through the boundary of the heliosphere and into pristine interstellar space only a decade after launch, enabling earlier science return and greatly increasing spacecraft life in the interstellar medium. In record-breaking time, the ISP as launched on SLS may answer questions raised by the extended mission of NASA’s Voyager spacecraft. While SLS and its efficient Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) offer benefits for exploration of the outer planets, adding one or more additional stages to this architecture makes it even more capable for missions beyond our solar system, offering more realistically appealing flight times that would allow the mission scientists to reap the rewards of exploration. During the time the SLS Program has been working with the Interstellar Probe team, it has identified an expedited path to the Block 2 capability planned for the Interstellar Probe mission, and further matured performance numbers for diverse multi-stage configurations using a combination of commercially available liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX) upper stages and solid motor kick stages. That work has demonstrated the SLS payload stage capability provides significant benefits and opens trade space for multiple missions in consideration during planning for the next Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. This presentation details the significant benefits SLS can provides for very high characteristic (C3) energy missions by coupling the capabilities of SLS to current commercial rocket propulsion stage systems. These capabilities are explored specifically in the context of an Interstellar Probe architecture in which a small, capable science probe, coupled with carefully tailored mission design trajectories, could be used to explore the outer solar system and the interstellar medium. The presentation will also address the operational logistics of integrating such a mission, explaining the options available for “non-standard” SLS payloads, including processing those with radioisotope power generators or additional propulsion stages. An SLS system overview and capabilities will be presented, along with vehicle configuration and orbit performance capability studies, explaining how SLS is enabling for a variety of high-energy science mission profiles, including launching an exploratory probe bound for interstellar space only a decade after launch.

Rob Stough↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving the Fidelity of Capability & Resource Weighting in A Probalistic Risk Assessment Model for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to provide an evidence-based, data-driven estimate of how medical system capabilities affect mission outcomes. IMPACT maps condition incidence to available resources thereby facilitating the calculation of outcome metrics that allow the estimation of mission medical risk. Conditions can be nominally categorized as either treated or untreated depending on the availability of necessary diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. This categorization enables IMPACT to estimate the effect of various medical system configurations on mission outcomes such as crew mortality, disability, crew member down-time, return to duty/recovery, and need for evacuation. IMPACT currently employs an equal weighting, “partial credit” approach to define treatment in which each of the capabilities associated with a given condition contributes an equal amount to management of the condition. This feature enables IMPACT to report values in between “fully untreated” and “fully treated” based on the proportion of capabilities available within the model. However, as is normal in medical/clinical practice, not all individual capabilities contribute equally to medical care. For example, the ability to provide intramuscular epinephrine during an anaphylactic episode contributes more likelihood of overall management success than does the administration of oral diphenhydramine. We hypothesize that weighting the relative contribution of each capability to each specific condition will improve outcome prediction and therefore will better provide mission planners with more nuanced and accurate options when designing space medical systems. METHODS Using a five-point Fibonacci scaling sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) subject matter experts from NASA’s Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element assigned relative contribution weighting values to each identified capability within IMPACT. Since the relative importance of each capability varies depending on the specific condition, the resulting “partial” weighting was completed for more than 1,600 individual weighting assignments for 666 capabilities across 121 conditions. Each assignment required three-physician concurrence based on the overall importance of the capability to the diagnosis and management of the condition being considered and the difficulty with which it could be improvised by the crew. Once complete, 100,000 IMPACT simulations were run for a 6-month Lunar mission with a 30-day surface stay to evaluate the effect of this modification of the model. RESULTS Partial weighting significantly decreased predicted task time loss (TTL), evacuation, and loss of crew life without causing significant changes to the recommended medical system design. CONCLUSIONS The paucity of real-world referent data to support long-duration space missions of this type limits the ability to judge one predictive analytics method as superior to another. However, since the proposed method significantly reduces and optimizes outcome risks—without changing the medical system design—incorporating a partial weighting methodology is likely to provide a more accurate and operationally-relevant representation of medical risk without compromising IMPACTs ability to inform overarching medical system requirements.

Steller JG↗

NASA NTRS2005

Capability 9.4 Servicing

This paper presents viewgraphs on capability structure 9.4 servicing. The topics include: 1) Servicing Description; 2) Benefits of Servicing; 3) Drivers & Assumptions for Servicing; 4) Capability Breakdown Structure 9.4 Servicing; 5) Roadmap for Servicing; 6) 9.4 Servicing Critical Gaps; 7) Capability 9.4 Servicing; 8) Capability 9.4.1 Inspection; 9) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.1 Inspection; 10) Capability 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 11) State-of-the-Art/Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 12) Capability 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 13) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 14) Capability 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 15) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 16) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 17) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 18) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 19) Capability 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, Training; and 20) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, & Training;

Moe, Rud↗

NASA NTRS2007

Overview of Experimental Capabilities - Supersonics

This viewgraph presentation gives an overview of experimental capabilities applicable to the area of supersonic research. The contents include: 1) EC Objectives; 2) SUP.11: Elements; 3) NRA; 4) Advanced Flight Simulator Flexible Aircraft Simulation Studies; 5) Advanced Flight Simulator Flying Qualities Guideline Development for Flexible Supersonic Transport Aircraft; 6) Advanced Flight Simulator Rigid/Flex Flight Control; 7) Advanced Flight Simulator Rapid Sim Model Exchange; 8) Flight Test Capabilities Advanced In-Flight Infrared (IR) Thermography; 9) Flight Test Capabilities In-Flight Schlieren; 10) Flight Test Capabilities CLIP Flow Calibration; 11) Flight Test Capabilities PFTF Flowfield Survey; 12) Ground Test Capabilities Laser-Induced Thermal Acoustics (LITA); 13) Ground Test Capabilities Doppler Global Velocimetry (DGV); 14) Ground Test Capabilities Doppler Global Velocimetry (DGV); and 15) Ground Test Capabilities EDL Optical Measurement Capability (PIV) for Rigid/Flexible Decelerator Models.

Banks, Daniel W.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ensuring US National Aeronautics Test Capabilities

U.S. leadership in aeronautics depends on ready access to technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. These systems include major wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities and flight test capabilities. The federal government owns the majority of the major aeronautics test capabilities in the United States, primarily through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). However, changes in the Aerospace landscape, primarily the decrease in demand for testing over the last 20 years required an overarching strategy for management of these national assets. Therefore, NASA established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) as a two-pronged strategic initiative to: (1) retain and invest in NASA aeronautics test capabilities considered strategically important to the agency and the nation, and (2) establish a strong, high level partnership with the DoD. Test facility utilization is a critical factor for ATP because it relies on user occupancy fees to recover a substantial part of the operations costs for its facilities. Decreasing utilization is an indicator of excess capacity and in some cases low-risk redundancy (i.e., several facilities with basically the same capability and overall low utilization). However, low utilization does not necessarily translate to lack of strategic importance. Some facilities with relatively low utilization are nonetheless vitally important because of the unique nature of the capability and the foreseeable aeronautics testing needs. Unfortunately, since its inception, the customer base for ATP has continued to shrink. Utilization of ATP wind tunnels has declined by more than 50% from the FY 2006 levels. This significant decrease in customer usage is attributable to several factors, including the overall decline in new programs and projects in the aerospace sector; the impact of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) on the design, development, and research process; and the reductions in wind tunnel testing requirements within the largest consumer of ATP wind tunnel test time, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Retirement of the Space Shuttle Program and recent perturbations of NASA's Constellation Program will exacerbate this downward trend. Therefore it is crucial that ATP periodically revisit and determine which of its test capabilities are strategically important, which qualify as low-risk redundancies that could be put in an inactive status or closed, and address the challenges associated with both sustainment and improvements to the test capabilities that must remain active. This presentation will provide an overview of the ATP vision, mission, and goals as well as the challenges and opportunities the program is facing both today and in the future. We will discuss the strategy ATP is taking over the next five years to address the National aeronautics test capability challenges and what the program will do to capitalize on its opportunities to ensure a ready, robust and relevant portfolio of National aeronautics test capabilities.

Marshall, Timothy J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LANDO: Developing Autonomous Payload Offloading Capabilities for Lunar Surface Operations

Introduction: The Lightweight Surface Manipulation System (LSMS) AutoNomy capabilities Development for surface Operations and construction (LANDO) project is an Early Career Initiative selected for funding by NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate. LANDO is developing a general-purpose autonomy framework applicable to serial and tension-actuated manipulation agents, that will be validated using an existing prototype of the LSMS-L35 (35-kg wrist lift capacity on the lunar surface [Fig. 1], sized for a Commercial Lunar Pay-load Services (CLPS) mission). The autonomous LSMS-L35 will be used to demonstrate autonomous payload handling capabilities for Lunar and other planetary surfaces, directly addressing STMD capability gaps in autonomous excavation and construction operations, advanced robotics and spacecraft autonomy technologies, and technologies supporting emerging space industries including the In-Space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing national strategy. LSMS: The LSMS is a tension actuated robotic agent that is scalable (reach and lifting capacity in different gravity environments), versatile (types of surface operations), and reusable. Compared to serial arms, the LSMS provides significantly higher structural efficiency and mechanical advantage, enabling a greater payload lift capacity at a lower system mass. The LSMS is envisioned to be a crucial part of the excavation and construction portfolio, capable of supporting a variety of activities on the lunar surface. Autonomous payload handling is one of the first activities the LSMS can support that develops capabilities that are extensible to other surface operations. Payload handling is required to: remove payloads from a lander; place payloads on mobile agents for transport from a lander to construction site/assembly point; emplace payloads in their operational configuration, and aggregate components to create an asset. As an example of this critical gap, manifested CLPS missions do not currently have a ubiquitous payload offloading capability; payloads (excluding rovers) are designed to remain on the lander. Why Autonomy? Autonomous robotic systems capable of carrying out excavation and construction operations are a fundamental and critical capability required for realizing the NASA Artemis program vision to “emplace and build the infrastructure, systems, and robotic missions that can enable a sustained lunar surface presence.” While teleoperation is still feasible for lunar surface operations, increased latency at Mars will require validated supervised autonomous technologies capable of operating with minimal human involvement (human-on-the-loop) unless an unexpected event occurs requiring human intervention. Autonomy reduces operator burden, allows operations to continue during uncrewed periods, in-creases the safety of operations by automatically detecting and handling faults, and allows operating in high latency environments. Development Activities: LANDO is extending critical autonomous operations to the manipulation domain and creating an integrated system, based on reusable software modules, that is capable of planning and executing payload handling and autonomous surface operations without requiring hu-man intervention beyond a supervisory role. The priority features under development are 1) autonomously offload payloads from a tilted lander deck without buckling the LSMS; 2) sensing whether a payload is safe to lift and handle; and 3) integrate with Astrobotic’s CLPS lander. The poster presentation will highlight current development activities over the past year on LSMS-L35 prototype hard-ware design, and autonomy software.

in-space assembly↗