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.
This paper discusses the array architecture, the resulting challenges in operations, maintenance and sustaining engineering, and preliminary operations concepts to overcome these challenges.
A mission-systems architecture, based on a highly modular infrastructure utilizing: open-standards hardware and software interfaces as the enabling technology is essential for affordable and sustainable space exploration programs. This mission-systems architecture requires (a) robust communication between heterogeneous system, (b) high reliability, (c) minimal mission-to-mission reconfiguration, (d) affordable development, system integration, and verification of systems, and (e) minimal sustaining engineering. This paper proposes such an architecture. Lessons learned from the Space Shuttle program and Earthbound complex engineered system are applied to define the model. Technology projections reaching out 5 years are mde to refine model details.
A mission-systems architecture, based on a highly modular infrastructure utilizing open-standards hardware and software interfaces as the enabling technology is essential for affordable md sustainable space exploration programs. This mission-systems architecture requires (8) robust communication between heterogeneous systems, (b) high reliability, (c) minimal mission-to-mission reconfiguration, (d) affordable development, system integration, end verification of systems, and (e) minimal sustaining engineering. This paper proposes such an architecture. Lessons learned from the Space Shuttle program and Earthbound complex engineered systems are applied to define the model. Technology projections reaching out 5 years are made to refine model details.
The EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments to Space Station or EXPRESS Rack System has provided accommodations and facilitated operations for microgravity-based research payloads for over 6 years on the International Space Station (ISS). The EXPRESS Rack accepts Space Shuttle middeck type lockers and International Subrack Interface Standard (ISIS) drawers, providing a modular-type interface on the ISS. The EXPRESS Rack provides 28Vdc power, Ethernet and RS-422 data interfaces, thermal conditioning, vacuum exhaust, and Nitrogen supply for payload use. The EXPRESS Rack system also includes payload checkout capability with a flight rack or flight rack emulator prior to launch, providing a high degree of confidence in successful operations once an-orbit. In addition, EXPRESS trainer racks are provided to support crew training of both rack systems and subrack operations. Standard hardware and software interfaces provided by the EXPRESS Rack simplify the integration processes for ISS payload development. The EXPRESS Rack is designed to accommodate multidiscipline research, allowing for the independent operation of each subrack payload within a single rack. On-orbit operations began for the EXPRESS Rack Project on April 24, 2001, with one rack operating continuously to support high-priority payloads. The other on-orbit EXPRESS Racks operate based on payload need and resource availability. Over 50 multi-discipline payloads have now been supported on-orbit by the EXPRESS Rack Program. Sustaining engineering, logistics, and maintenance functions are in place to maintain hardware, operations and provide software upgrades. Additional EXPRESS Racks are planned for launch prior to ISS completion in support of long-term operations and the planned transition of the U.S. Segment to a National Laboratory.
The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) is a multimission support facility that performs ground navigation and spacecraft trajectory design services for a wide range of scientific satellites. The FDF also supports the NASA Space Network by providing orbit determination and tracking data evaluation services for the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). The FDF traces its history to early NASA missions in the 1960's, including navigation support to the Apollo lunar missions. Over its 40 year history, the FDF has undergone many changes in its architecture, services offered, missions supported, management approach, and business operation. As a fully reimbursable facility (users now pay 100% of all costs for FDF operations and sustaining engineering activities), the FDF has faced significant challenges in recent years in providing mission critical products and services at minimal cost while defining and implementing upgrades necessary to meet future mission demands. This paper traces the history of the FDF and discusses significant events in the past that impacted the FDF infrastructure and/or business model, and the events today that are shaping the plans for the FDF in the next decade. Today's drivers for change include new mission requirements, the availability of new technology for spacecraft navigation, and continued pressures for cost reduction from FDF users. Recently, the FDF completed an architecture study based on these drivers that defines significant changes planned for the facility. This paper discusses the results of this study and a proposed implementation plan. As a case study in how flight dynamics operations have evolved and will continue to evolve, this paper focuses on two periods of time (1992 and the present) in order to contrast the dramatic changes that have taken place in the FDF. This paper offers observations and plans for the evolution of the FDF over the next ten years. Finally, this paper defines the mission model of the future for the FDF based on NASA's current mission list and planning for the Constellation Program. As part of this discussion the following are addressed: the relevance and benefits of a multi-mission facility for NASA's navigation operations in the future; anticipated technologies affecting ground orbit determination; continued incorporation of Commercial Off-the-shelf (COTS) software into the FDF; challenges of a business model that relies entirely on user fees to fund facility upgrades; anticipated changes in flight dynamics services required; and considerations for defining architecture upgrades given a set of cost drivers.
This viewgraph presentation describes in detail the requirements and goals of the Core Flight Executive (cFE) and the Core Flight System (CFS). The Core Flight Software System is a mission independent, platform-independent, Flight Software (FSW) environment integrating a reusable core flight executive (cFE). The CFS goals include: 1) Reduce time to deploy high quality flight software; 2) Reduce project schedule and cost uncertainty; 3) Directly facilitate formalized software reuse; 4) Enable collaboration across organizations; 5) Simplify sustaining engineering (AKA. FSW maintenance); 6) Scale from small instruments to System of Systems; 7) Platform for advanced concepts and prototyping; and 7) Common standards and tools across the branch and NASA wide.
The SCaN Program has defined an integrated network architecture that fully meets the Administrator s mandate to the Program, and will result in a NASA infrastructure capable of providing the needed and enabling communications services to future space missions. The integrated network architecture will increase SCaN operational efficiency and interoperability through standardization, commonality and technology infusion. It will enable NASA missions requiring advanced communication and tracking capabilities such as: a. Optical communication b. Antenna arraying c. Lunar and Mars Relays d. Integrated network management (service management and network control) and integrated service execution e. Enhanced tracking for navigation f. Space internetworking with DTN and IP g. End-to-end security h. Enhanced security services Moreover, the SCaN Program has created an Integrated Network Roadmap that depicts an orchestrated and coherent evolution path toward the target architecture, encompassing all aspects that concern network assets (i.e., operations and maintenance, sustaining engineering, upgrade efforts, and major development). This roadmap identifies major NASA ADPs, and shows dependencies and drivers among the various planned undertakings and timelines. The roadmap is scalable to accommodate timely adjustments in response to Agency needs, goals, objectives and funding. Future challenges to implementing this architecture include balancing user mission needs, technology development, and the availability of funding within NASA s priorities. Strategies for addressing these challenges are to: define a flexible architecture, update the architecture periodically, use ADPs to evaluate options and determine when to make decisions, and to engage the stakeholders in these evaluations. In addition, the SCaN Program will evaluate and respond to mission need dates for technical and operational capabilities to be provided by the SCaN integrated network. In that regard, the architecture defined in this ADD is scalable to accommodate programmatic and technical changes.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) estimates during the proposal and early design phases, as well as project replans during the development phase, are heavily focused on hardware development schedules and costs. Operations (phase E) costs are typically small compared to the spacecraft development and test costs. This, combined with the long lead time for realizing operations costs, can lead to de-emphasizing estimation of operations support requirements during proposal, early design, and replan cost exercises. The Discovery and New Frontiers (D&NF) programs comprise small, cost-capped missions supporting scientific exploration of the solar system. Any LCC growth can directly impact the programs' ability to fund new missions, and even moderate yearly underestimates of the operations costs can present significant LCC impacts for deep space missions with long operational durations. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) D&NF Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for 5 missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that 4 out of the 5 missions studied had significant overruns at or after launch due to underestimation of the complexity and supporting requirements for operations activities; the fifth mission had not launched at the time of the mission. The drivers behind these overruns include overly optimistic assumptions regarding the savings resulting from the use of heritage technology, late development of operations requirements, inadequate planning for sustaining engineering and the special requirements of long duration missions (e.g., knowledge retention and hardware/software refresh), and delayed completion of ground system development work. This paper updates the D&NF LCC study, looking at the operations (phase E) cost drivers in more detail and extending the study to include 2 additional missions and identifies areas for increased emphasis by project management in order to improve the fidelity of operations estimates.
Operations (phase E) costs are typically small compared to the spacecraft development and test costs. This, combined with the long lead time for realizing operations costs, can lead projects to focus on hardware development schedules and costs, de-emphasizing estimation of operations support requirements during proposal, early design, and replan cost exercises. The Discovery and New Frontiers (D&NF) programs comprise small, cost-capped missions supporting scientific exploration of the solar system. Even moderate yearly underestimates of the operations costs can present significant LCC impacts for deep space missions with long operational durations, and any LCC growth can directly impact the programs ability to fund new missions. The D&NF Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center recently studied cost overruns for 7 D&NF missions related to phase C/D development of operational capabilities and phase E mission operations. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential operations risks and controlling the associated impacts to operations development and execution costs. The study found that the drivers behind these overruns include overly optimistic assumptions regarding the savings resulting from the use of heritage technology, late development of operations requirements, inadequate planning for sustaining engineering and the special requirements of long duration missions (e.g., knowledge retention and hardware/software refresh), and delayed completion of ground system development work. This presentation summarizes the study and the results, providing a set of lessons NASA can use to improve early estimation and validation of operations costs.
The Data Service Provider Cost Estimation Tool (CET) and Comparables Database (CDB) package provides to NASA s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) the ability to estimate the full range of year-by-year lifecycle cost estimates for the implementation and operation of data service providers required by ESE to support its science and applications programs. The CET can make estimates dealing with staffing costs, supplies, facility costs, network services, hardware and maintenance, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software licenses, software development and sustaining engineering, and the changes in costs that result from changes in workload. Data Service Providers may be stand-alone or embedded in flight projects, field campaigns, research or applications projects, or other activities. The CET and CDB package employs a cost-estimation-by-analogy approach. It is based on a new, general data service provider reference model that provides a framework for construction of a database by describing existing data service providers that are analogs (or comparables) to planned, new ESE data service providers. The CET implements the staff effort and cost estimation algorithms that access the CDB and generates the lifecycle cost estimate for a new data services provider. This data creates a common basis for an ESE proposal evaluator for considering projected data service provider costs.
Common practice in the development of simulation systems is meeting all user requirements within a single instantiation. The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) presents a unique challenge to establish a simulation environment that meets the needs of a diverse user community while also spanning a multi-mission environment over decades of operation. In response, the JPSS Flight Vehicle Test Suite (FVTS) is architected with an extensible infrastructure that supports the operation of multiple observatory simulations for a single mission and multiple mission within a common system perimeter. For the JPSS-1 satellite, multiple fidelity flight observatory simulations are necessary to support the distinct user communities consisting of the Common Ground System development team, the Common Ground System Integration & Test team, and the Mission Rehearsal Team/Mission Operations Team. These key requirements present several challenges to FVTS development. First, the FVTS must ensure all critical user requirements are satisfied by at least one fidelity instance of the observatory simulation. Second, the FVTS must allow for tailoring of the system instances to function in diverse operational environments from the High-security operations environment at NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF) to the ground system factory floor. Finally, the FVTS must provide the ability to execute sustaining engineering activities on a subset of the system without impacting system availability to parallel users. The FVTS approach of allowing for multiple fidelity copies of observatory simulations represents a unique concept in simulator capability development and corresponds to the JPSS Ground System goals of establishing a capability that is flexible, extensible, and adaptable.
Marshall?s Materials and Processes Laboratory has been a core capability for NASA for over fifty years. MSFC has a proven heritage and recognized expertise in materials and manufacturing that are essential to enable and sustain space exploration. Marshall provides a "systems-wise" capability for applied research, flight hardware development, and sustaining engineering. Our history of leadership and achievements in materials, manufacturing, and flight experiments includes Apollo, Skylab, Mir, Spacelab, Shuttle (Space Shuttle Main Engine, External Tank, Reusable Solid Rocket Motor, and Solid Rocket Booster), Hubble, Chandra, and the International Space Station. MSFC?s National Center for Advanced Manufacturing, NCAM, facilitates major M&P advanced manufacturing partnership activities with academia, industry and other local, state and federal government agencies. The Materials and Processes Laborato ry has principal competencies in metals, composites, ceramics, additive manufacturing, materials and process modeling and simulation, space environmental effects, non-destructive evaluation, and fracture and failure analysis provide products ranging from materials research in space to fully integrated solutions for large complex systems challenges. Marshall?s materials research, development and manufacturing capabilities assure that NASA and National missions have access to cutting-edge, cost-effective engineering design and production options that are frugal in using design margins and are verified as safe and reliable. These are all critical factors in both future mission success and affordability.
The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is leading NASA's efforts to develop the next U.S. capability for crew transportation and rescue services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) by the middecade timeframe. The outcome of this capability is expected to stimulate and expand the U.S. space transportation industry. NASA is relying on its decades of human space flight experience to certify U.S. crewed vehicles to the ISS and is doing so in a two phase certification approach. NASA certification will cover all aspects of a crew transportation system, including: Development, test, evaluation, and verification. Program management and control. Flight readiness certification. Launch, landing, recovery, and mission operations. Sustaining engineering and maintenance/upgrades. To ensure NASA crew safety, NASA certification will validate technical and performance requirements, verify compliance with NASA requirements, validate that the crew transportation system operates in the appropriate environments, and quantify residual risks. The Commercial Crew Program will present progress to date and how it manages safety and reduces risk.
NASA's integrated vehicle health management (IVHM) program offers the potential to improve aeronautical safety, reduce cost and improve performance by utilizing networks of wireless sensors. Development of sensor systems for engine hot sections will provide real-time data for prognostics and health management of turbo-engines. Sustainable power to embedded wireless sensors is a key challenge for prolong operation. Harvesting energy from the environment has emerged as a viable technique for power generation. Thermoelectric generators provide a direct conversion of heat energy to electrical energy. Micro-power sources derived from thermoelectric films are desired for applications in harsh thermal environments. Silicon based alloys are being explored for applications in high temperature environments containing oxygen. Chromium based p-type Si/Ge alloys exhibit Seebeck coefficients on the order of 160 micro V/K and low thermal conductance of 2.5 to 5 W/mK. Thermoelectric properties of bulk and thin film silicides will be discussed
The Multi-User Space (MUS) Link Extension system, a software and data system, provides Space Link Extension (SLE) users with three space data transfer services in timely, complete, and offline modes as applicable according to standards defined by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). MUS radically reduces the schedule, cost, and risk of implementing a new SLE user system, minimizes operating costs with a lights-out approach to SLE, and is designed to require no sustaining engineering expense during its lifetime unless changes in the CCSDS SLE standards, combined with new provider implementations, force changes. No software modification to MUS needs to be made to support a new mission. Any systems engineer with Linux experience can begin testing SLE user service instances with MUS starting from a personal computer (PC) within five days. For flight operators, MUS provides a familiar-looking Web page for entering SLE configuration data received from SLE. Operators can also use the Web page to back up a space mission's entire set of up to approximately 500 SLE service instances in less than five seconds, or to restore or transfer from another system the same amount of data from a MUS backup file in about the same amount of time. Missions operate each MUS SLE service instance independently by sending it MUS directives, which are legible, plain ASCII strings. MUS directives are usually (but not necessarily) sent through a TCP-IP (Transmission Control Protocol Internet Protocol) socket from a MOC (Mission Operations Center) or POCC (Payload Operations Control Center) system, under scripted control, during "lights-out" spacecraft operation. MUS permits the flight operations team to configure independently each of its data interfaces; not only commands and telemetry, but also MUS status messages to the MOC. Interfaces can use single- or multiple-client TCP/IP server sockets, TCP/IP client sockets, temporary disk files, the system log, or standard in, standard out, or standard error as applicable. By defining MUS templates in ASCII, the flight operations team can include any MUS system variable in telemetry or command headers or footers, and/or in status messages. Data fields can be arranged within messages in different sequences, according to the mission s needs. The only constraints imposed are on the format of MUS directive strings, and some bare minimum logical requirements that must be met in order for MUS to read the mission control center's spacecraft command inputs. The MUS system imposes no limits or constraints on the numbers and combinations of missions and SLE service instances that it will support simultaneously. At any time, flight operators may add, change, delete, bind, connect, or disconnect.
The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is leading NASA's efforts to develop the next U.S. capability for crew transportation and rescue services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) by the mid-decade timeframe. The outcome of this capability is expected to stimulate and expand the U.S. space transportation industry. NASA is relying on its decades of human space flight experience to certify U.S. crewed vehicles to the ISS and is doing so in a two phase certification approach. NASA Certification will cover all aspects of a crew transportation system, including development, test, evaluation, and verification; program management and control; flight readiness certification; launch, landing, recovery, and mission operations; sustaining engineering and maintenance/upgrades. To ensure NASA crew safety, NASA Certification will validate technical and performance requirements, verify compliance with NASA requirements, validate the crew transportation system operates in appropriate environments, and quantify residual risks.
Since August 2001, the Materials on International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) has provided data on a variety of materials and spacecraft components, including samples chosen to provide sustaining engineering and life extension data for the International Space Station vehicle itself. This Technical Publication is by no means a complete set of MISSE data but does provide changes in solar absorptance, infrared emittance, and visual appearance due to atomic oxygen, ultraviolet radiation, and thermal cycling in vacuum. Conversion coatings, anodizes, thermal control coatings with organic and inorganic binders, multilayer insulation components, optical materials, and part markings are discussed.
The Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) is a rack facility aboard the International Space Station (ISS) designed for investigation handling. The MSG was built by the European Space Agency (ESA) which also provides sustaining engineering support for the facility. The MSG has been operating on the ISS since July 2002 and is currently located in the US Laboratory Module. The unique design of the facility allows it to accommodate science and technology investigations in a "workbench" type environment. The facility has an enclosed working volume that is held at a negative pressure with respect to the crew living area. This allows the facility to provide two levels of containment for small parts, particulates, fluids, and gases. This containment approach protects the crew from possible hazardous operations that take place inside the MSG work volume. Research investigations operating inside the MSG are provided a large 255 liter enclosed work space, 1000 watts of dc power via a versatile supply interface (120, 28, +/- 12, and 5 Vdc), 1000 watts of cooling capability, video and data recording and real time downlink, ground commanding capabilities, access to ISS Vacuum Exhaust and Vacuum Resource Systems, and gaseous nitrogen supply. These capabilities make the MSG one of the most utilized facilities on ISS. The MSG has been used for over 14500 hours of scientific payload operations. MSG investigations involve research in cryogenic fluid management, fluid physics, spacecraft fire safety, materials science, combustion, plant growth, and life support technology. The MSG facility is operated by the Payloads Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space flight Center. Payloads may also operate remotely from different telescience centers located in the United States and Europe. The investigative Payload Integration Manager (iPIM) is the focal to assist organizations that have payloads operating in the MSG facility. NASA provides an MSG engineering unit for payload developers to verify that their hardware is operating properly before actual operation on the ISS. This paper will provide an overview of the MSG facility, a synopsis of the research that has already been accomplished in the MSG, and an overview of video and biological upgrades.