SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Various topics concerned with advanced battery technology are addressed including lithium cell and battery safety developments, mathematical modelling, charge control of aerospace power systems, and the application of nickel hydrogen cells/batteries vis-a-vis nickel cadmium cells/batteries.
Appropriate directions for the applied research and technology programs that will develop space power systems for U.S. future space missions beyond 1995 are explored. Spacecraft power supplies; space stations, space power reactors, solar arrays, thermoelectric generators, energy storage, and communication satellites are among the topics discussed.
Stirling-based power conversion system could represent a critical enabling technology for future NASA missions, offering significantly enhanced power efficiency over traditional thermoelectric systems. To ensure the successful infusion of this technology into deep space and planetary surface missions, a rigorous evaluation of its maturity and associated risks is essential. The objective of this Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is to determine the current technology readiness level (TRL) of the Stirling power convertor and identify key technical risks and challenges associated with its maturation and potential infusion into a targeted flight system. The evaluation process will rigorously follow the NASA TRA procedure: (1) determining the requirements that underpin the design, function, and performance; (2) finding and listing all new technology elements (NTEs) and critical technology elements (CTEs); (3) identifying the level of integration assumed for the assessment; and (4) assessing the TRL for each NTE and CTE. The overall subassembly TRL will then be determined via a roll-up using the “weakest link” criterion, culminating in a final (5) assessment of risks to further progression of maturity. This paper will present the results of a comprehensive technology readiness assessment (TRA) conducted on the Stirling-based dynamic power conversion subassembly, excluding the radioisotope heat source. The paper will also describe a detailed breakdown of the TRL roll-up and a matrix of identified risks and recommended mitigation paths, along with identified key technical risks and challenges to achieve the required long-duration performance. Key Words: Radioisotope Power Conversion, Technology Readiness Assessment
The OSO-1 represents a recent vintage satellite, or more recent design satellite. A summary of the battery design used on OSO-1 is presented. The temperature effects on voltage and charging-discharging of the battery system are discussed.
Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.
Pre-flight testing is critical to the success of any flight test program. Pre-flight tests are performed to measure and evaluate the characteristics of an aircraft in a non-flying environment and to verify that these characteristics are as desired. Since aircraft systems are becoming more and more complex, conducting proper pre-flight testing to help identify system characteristics and deficiencies prior to flight is more important now than ever before. Much flight test time has been lost fixing problems that should have been found and corrected prior to flight. Accidents have occurred because pre-flight tests and verification procedures were not conducted thoroughly enough to identify the aircraft's characteristics properly or to find system discrepancies. Proper pre-flight testing helps ensure that the aircraft is ready to fly and contributes toward an efficient, productive, and safe flight test program. The reader should be aware that this Section is dedicated to the testing that should take place prior to the first flight. There are other "pre-flight" tests that take place prior to each individual flight. These latter tests are not discussed in this Section. The following paragraphs of this Section describe significant tests that are usually accomplished prior to flying a new or highly modified aircraft. Test objectives, descriptions, products, and requirements are provided in the following subsections: 9.1 Wind tunnel tests 9.2 Simulation tests 9.3 Propulsion tests 9.4 Weight and balance tests 9.5 Ground vibration tests 9.6 Structural loads tests 9.7 Gain margin tests 9.8 Verification and calibration tests 9.9 Taxi tests The specific examples given and the test facilities mentioned in this Section will illustrate the approach taken and the techniques used by the US Air Force; however, they are typical of those used by other test organizations.
Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.
Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.
The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) is NASA’s next large space telescope, selected by the 2020 Decadal Survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics to search for and characterize habitable exoplanets while enabling a broad range of transformative astrophysics. In August 2024, the HWO Technology Maturation Project Office (TMPO) was formed to begin exploring the HWO science, technology, and mission architectures toward a Mission Concept Review (MCR) at the end of the decade. A primary deliverable of this effort is this technology development plan that identifies critical technologies that enable the mission, defines a process for assessing the readiness of those technologies, and outlines a strategy for developing those technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 before the MCR. This document covers technologies organized along three “tracks”: Coronagraph System technologies, Ultra-stable Telescope System technologies, and High-sensitivity Ultraviolet and Visible Instrumentation technologies. Additional emerging and enhancing technologies are also discussed.
To guide development of microwave process technology that could be used during in situ construction on the Moon, we measured the high-temperature basic dielectric properties (εʹ and εʺ) of 17 lunar simulants and related materials. In order to confidently use these data one needs to understand the data’s strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, a goal of this publication is to provide insights into the comparative effects of sample composition, pre-treatments, experimental variables, high temperatures, and other factors on the measured response. The dielectric measurements were performed using the cavity perturbation method over a temperature range between room temperature to 1000 °C, or higher, and provided the real and imaginary components of permittivity at six frequencies. The utility of the original values was limited by the varying density of the pellets used in the measurement. Therefore, all of the εʹ and εʺ measurements at the frequency of 2466 MHz have been scaled to a constant density, 1.75 g/cm 3 . Here the data are presented as graphs chosen to aid analysis within and across simulant groups. To gain additional insight into the processes happening at the elevated temperatures in the dielectric measurements, heat capacity data was obtained using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) on several of the simulant materials. Our data show that over the frequency range 397 MHz – 2985 MHz a material’s behavior does not greatly change, as compared to the scale of differences observed between lunar mare and highland simulants at high temperatures. For example at 1000 °C, the mare simulant JSC-1A absorbs 10 times more power than the highland simulant NUW-LHT-5M. We observe that as melting temperatures are reached both permittivity and dielectric loss rise non-linearly, helping to explain thermal runaway during microware heating. Our data show that even less than a few weight % of many non-lunar minerals, and the use of mixtures in simulants can affect the dielectric behavior at higher temperatures. A comparison of our results with published dielectric data for Apollo samples and with remote sensing of the Moon supports the conclusion the simulants and lunar material at room temperature have very similar dielectric values.
CdZnTe crystals were grown in one-g and in micro-g for comparative analysis. The two micro-g crystals were grown in the Crystal Growth Furnace during the First United States Microgravity Laboratory mission (USML-1). The samples were analyzed for chemical homogeneity, structural perfection, and optoelectronic performance (infrared transmission). Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) transmission of both ground and flight materials showed that the infrared transmission was close to theoretical, 63% versus 66%, suggesting that the material was close to the stochiometric composition during both the ground and flight experiments. Infrared microscopy confirmed that the principal precipitates were Te and their size (1-10 microns) and density suggested that the primary flight and ground base samples experienced similar cooling rates. Macrosegregation was predicted, using scaling analysis, to be low even in one-g crystals and this was confirmed experimentally, with nearly diffusion controlled growth achieved even in the partial mixing regime on the ground. Radial segregation was monitored in the flight samples and was found to vary with fraction solidified, but was disturbed due to the asymmetric grvitational and thermal fields experienced by the flight samples. The flight samples, however, were found to be much higher in structural perfection than the ground samples produced in the same furnace under identical growth conditions except for the gravitational level. Rocking curve widths were found to be substantially reduced, from 20/35 (one-g) to 9/20 (micro-g) for the best regions of the crystals. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 9 arc seconds is as good as the best reported terrestrially for this material. The ground samples were found to have a fully developed mosaic structure consisting of subgrains, whereas the flight sample dislocations were discrete and no mosaic substructure was evident. The defect density was reduced from 50-100,000 (one-g) to 500-25000 EPD (micro-g). These results were confirmed using rocking curve analysis, synchrotron topography, and etch pit analysis. The low dislocation density is thought to have resulted from the near-absence of hydrostatic pressure which allowed the melt to solidify with minimum or no wall contact, resulting in very low stress being exerted on the crystal during growth or during post-solidification cooling.
We present the first N 2 profile for Venus’ deep lower atmosphere (<15 km) and a constrained isotopic composition for cloud N 2 [1]. This work directly addresses unresolved questions for Venus using legacy observations. Prior to this work, there were no reported measurements for N 2 abundances at <15 km and the isotopic composition remained unconstrained [2]. The N 2 parameters are critical to understanding the evolution and thermal properties of the atmosphere [3-7]. Our N 2 results were obtained by re-analysis of data acquired in 1978 by the Pioneer Venus Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer (LNMS) [8]. The archived mass spectra from 64.2 to 0.2 km were treated using the analytical procedures specifically developed for the LNMS [9-11]. Judicious peak fitting permitted disambiguation of (A) N 2 + and CO + at 28 u and (B) 14 N 15 N+, 13 CO + , and C 2 H 5 + at 29 u. Quality controls included comparing the (A) LNMS CO + /CO 2 + ratios to the NIST database and literature and (B) fitted counts for CO + to the expected counts of CO + calculated from C 18 O + and 13 CO + using the LNMS 16 O/ 18 O and 12 C/ 13 C ratios (obtained from CO 2 ). Our results show that N 2 is uniformly mixed across the deep lower atmosphere between ~0.2 and 15 km (2.49 ± 0.10 v%). In contrast, N 2 is non-uniformly mixed across the sub-cloud atmosphere and clouds (~15–59 km), where N 2 abundances increase by ~ 2-fold between ~15 km (2.45 ± 0.32 v%) and ~59-51 km (5.21 ± 0.18 v%). Using the cloud data, we also obtained a constrained 15 N/ 14 N ratio (2.93×10 -3 ± 0.13×10 -3 ) and δ 15 N value (-204 ± 35‰). Thus, the LNMS results [1] suggest that (A) the atmosphere is unstable at <15 km, (B) N 2 is not well-mixed >15 km, and (C) the cloud δ 15 N falls between Earth and the solar wind [12, 13]. Comparisons of the N 2 abundances and isotopic compositions for nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen to other Venus measurements will be discussed.
Sixty years since the first spacewalk, NASA’s Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) exploration space suit has undergone numerous design improvements and iterations. As commercial manufacturers develop next-generation systems to support increasingly complex missions, including Moon-to-Mars architecture prototyping and the design of the Martian Portable Life Support System (PLSS), material selection and individual subunit testing under realistic metabolic and pressure conditions are paramount. To determine whether a reusable carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) scrubber design and adsorbent can be utilized in new suit configurations, an all-encompassing test rig is required to compare existing and newly developed technologies. The test rig must be capable of sub-atmospheric testing, calibrated humid CO 2 dosing, and facilitation of the evaluation of sorbents across a wide range of operational requirements. Recently, XploSafe has developed an Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) testing rig specifically designed to explore CO 2 and humidity control materials for spacesuits. This closed-loop recirculating swing bed (Rapid Cycle Amine Test Rig) was utilized to compare adsorbent utility across a wide range of xEMU operating conditions. Following successful testing with Xplo-SA9T over multiple simulated eight-hour Extravehicular Activity (EVA) tests, improvements to the test stand were considered. Regeneration vacuum supply within the test rig was updated to more closely resemble space vacuum, theoretically increasing half-cycle timing. An improved water vapor delivery system was incorporated to dose a wider calibrated range of humidity over both short and long-duration EVAs. A range of metabolic profiles between 800 and 3000 BTU/h were tested, and the corresponding average CO 2 steady-states were compared. The effect of dosing temperature at the adsorbent bed inlet between 10 and 40 ̊C and the corresponding CO 2 removal efficiency was also evaluated.
Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) is a sample return mission from the Martian moon Phobos. The MMX spacecraft is scheduled for launch in 2026 and return to Earth in 2031. The primary science objective of MMX is to reveal the origin of the Martian moons, thereby advancing the understanding of planetary system formation and material transport in the solar system, as well as to observe processes affecting the circumplanetary and surface environments of Mars. The returned sample will be transported to the curation facility at ISAS/JAXA, and the subsequent curation and sample analysis activity will be conducted. As a sample return mission, MMX requires strict contamination control to prevent the intrusion of terrestrial materials.
The hardware for the three Autonomous Visibility Monitoring (AVM) observatories was redesigned. Changes in hardware design include electronics components, weather sensors, and the telescope drive system. Operation of the new hardware is discussed, as well as some of its features. The redesign will allow reliable automated operation.
A viewgraph presentation outlines the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) power system and battery history. ERBS spacecraft and battery cell failures are listed with the reasons for failure. The battery management decision and stabilization of the batteries is discussed. Present battery operations are shown to be successful.
The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) began testing the HST Ni-H2 Six Battery Test and the 'Flight Spare Battery' Tests approximately one year before the launch of the HST. These tests are operated and reported on by the MSFC, but are managed and funded by Goddard Space Flight Center in direct support of the HST program. The HST Ni-H2 batteries are built from Eagle Picher RNH-90-3 cells. The HST EPS (electrical power system) is a direct energy transfer power system. The HST Ni-H2 Six Battery Test is a breadboard of the HST EPS. The batteries in the test are composed of test module cells and packaged into three battery modules identical to the flight modules. This test is the HST EPS testbed. The 'Flight Spare Battery' Test is a simulation of one of the six battery channels on the HST. The cells in the test are from the flight spare lot of cells, which are the same lot of cells that three of the six HST flight batteries are made from. This test is the battery life test for the HST program.
When originally launched, the International Space Station (ISS) primary Electric Power System (EPS) used Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) batteries to store electrical energy. The electricity for the space station is generated by its solar arrays, which charge batteries during insolation for subsequent discharge during eclipse. The Ni-H2 batteries were designed to operate for ten years at a 35 percent depth of discharge (DOD) maximum during normal operation in a Low Earth Orbit. For service beyond that period, upgraded Li-Ion Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs) were designed. These are the largest Li-Ion batteries ever utilized for a human rated spacecraft. With the oldest 12 Ni-H2 battery ORUs cycling since September 2006, the first set of six was replaced by Li-Ion batteries in December 2016; the second set of six is planned for replacement in September 2018. This paper will include an overview of the ISS Li-Ion battery system architecture, on-orbit status of the first 6 batteries, start up of the second 6 batteries, and the status of the Li-Ion cell and ORU life cycle testing.