Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “FOD”

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.

At least 109 records · Page 6

Performance of Silica Gel in the Role of Residual Air Drying. Part II.

Removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) is a necessary step in air revitalization and is often accomplished with sorbent materials. Since moisture competes with CO2 in zeolite sorbent materials, it is necessary to remove the water first. This is typically accomplished in two stages: “bulk” removal and “residual” drying. Silica gel is used as the bulk drying material in the Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) in operation on the ISS (International Space Station). There has been some speculation that silica gel may also be capable of serving as both bulk and residual drying material to reduce system mass and Foreign Object Debris (FOD). Previous research tested silica gel alone as drying material. However, the silica gel volume used was not comparable to the current amount used on the CDRA. Therefore, the tests were repeated with the new silica gel volume. This paper discusses the fabrication and assembly of the modified canister to accommodate the new volume, the testing, and the evaluation of the test results.

Air Revitalization↗

NASA's Geoscience Training Program for Astronauts

Geoscientists have been training and preparing astronauts to observe the Earth from space and explore other planetary surfaces with a legacy that reaches back to the early days of the space program. Continuing this legacy and critical function, a core NASA team has been closely coordinating with the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) as well as academic, institute, and other governmental partners to conduct a comprehensive geoscience training program that ranges from initial astronaut candidate training to preparing crew for Artemis missions. Described below are the three program training phases, along with recent program highlights and forward planning.

Graff, T. G.↗

LUNAR SURFACE GEOSCIENCE TRAINING FOR ASTRONAUTS

Geoscientists have been training and preparing astronauts to observe the Earth from space and explore other planetary surfaces with a legacy that reaches back to the early days of the space program. Continuing this legacy and critical function, a core NASA team has been closely coordinating with the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) as well as academic, research institutions, and other governmental partners to conduct a comprehensive geoscience training program that ranges from initial astronaut candidate training to preparing assigned crew for future lunar surface missions. Described below are the three program training phases (summarized in Figure 1), along with recent program highlights and forward planning. Given NASA’s increased planning and development efforts regarding near-term lunar surface science activities, we welcome ideas, concepts, capabilities, collaborations, and innovations to this astronaut training program.

T. G. Graff↗

Crew Autonomy through Self-Scheduling: Guidelines for Crew Scheduling Performance Envelope and Mitigation Strategies

As NASA considers long-duration exploration missions, it is envisioned that crews will behave more autonomously as compared to low-Earth orbit missions. When considering long duration exploration missions, Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) identified the following benefits and challenges presented on this slide. As missions operate further from Earth, the communication latency between the spacecraft and Mission Control Center will increase requiring the crew to take a more active role in reacting to daily planning. However, one of the key challenges for crew self-scheduling is that we do not want to overwhelm astronauts who are not expert mission planners. This leads to our primary research objective: to first, characterize the human performance envelope for the task of planning and scheduling in the context of human spaceflight operations, then, develop countermeasure aids to mitigate adverse performance effects due to plan complexity, and finally, inform performance standards and guidelines based on research results. Our next steps are to finish summarizing our findings from the experiment in conference papers and our upcoming yearly report. In the upcoming year, we will continue to collect data in analog missions and begin summarizing our recommended standards and guidelines.

user experience↗

JETT3: A Holistic, Integrated Analog for Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration

Since 1972, NASA astronauts have performed hundreds of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in support of Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station missions. Not since Apollo, however, have EVAs been driven by discovery-based principles of scientific exploration. Upcoming Artemis missions are challenged to build on lessons learned from Apollo, merging 50 years of EVA experience with the planetary science community’s expertise in the remote surface exploration of Mars. The highest-fidelity preparation for Artemis includes both operational and scientific underpinning to represent the complete, complex picture of lunar surface operations. The Joint EVA & Human Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT) is an interdisciplinary team providing such an environment for collaborative analog testing. JETT builds upon prior analog campaigns (e.g., [1, 2]) to provide high-fidelity environments for hardware and concept of operations development. Sponsored by the NASA EVA & Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), JETT includes representatives from EHP, NASA Engineering, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Human Health & Performance, and the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). JETT tests evaluate NASA reference designs for EVA (e.g., suits and tools), address gaps and risks for Artemis lunar surface operations, develop capabilities for EVA and science tasks, enable technology maturation, and provide training for Artemis EVA operations. JETT3, the final JETT field test of FY22, occurred Oct 3-11, 2022 in the San Francisco Volcanic Field north of Flagstaff, AZ. The test focused on developing the Artemis concept of operations and systems, including integrating an Artemis-like Science Team into a NASA Flight Control Team (FCT) to plan and execute a series of simulated lunar EVAs in an environment analogous to Artemis 3.

T. E. Caswell↗

JETT3: A Holistic, Integrated Analog for Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration

Since 1972, NASA astronauts have performed hundreds of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in support of Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station missions. Not since Apollo, however, have EVAs been driven by discovery-based principles of scientific exploration. Upcoming Artemis missions are challenged to build on lessons learned from Apollo, merging 50 years of EVA experience with the planetary science community’s expertise in the remote surface exploration of Mars. The highest-fidelity preparation for Artemis includes both operational and scientific underpinning to represent the complete, complex picture of lunar surface operations. The Joint EVA & Human Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT) is an interdisciplinary team providing such an environment for collaborative analog testing. JETT builds upon prior analog campaigns (e.g., [1, 2]) to provide high-fidelity environments for hardware and concept of operations development. Sponsored by the NASA EVA & Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), JETT includes representatives from EHP, NASA Engineering, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Human Health & Performance, and the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). JETT tests evaluate NASA reference designs for EVA (e.g., suits and tools), address gaps and risks for Artemis lunar surface operations, develop capabilities for EVA and science tasks, enable technology maturation, and provide training for Artemis EVA operations. JETT3, the final JETT field test of FY22, occurred Oct 3-11, 2022 in the San Francisco Volcanic Field north of Flagstaff, AZ. The test focused on developing the Artemis concept of operations and systems, including integrating an Artemis-like Science Team into a NASA Flight Control Team (FCT) to plan and execute a series of simulated lunar EVAs in an environment analogous to Artemis 3.

T. E. Caswell↗

Artemis Internal Science Team Update: Artemis Science Flight Operations

The Artemis Internal Science Team (AIST) is positioned across NASA to provide crossmission Science leadership across the Agency and Artemis. To prepare for the next generation of planetary surface exploration-based extravehicular activities (EVAs), we draw heavily from experience with Apollo, SkyLab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS), and analog tests to design the structure by which science will be integrated in the Plan, Train, and Fly phases of Artemis missions. AIST members have been working for years to integrate science into the Artemis flight operations structure, most notably through a tight collaboration with the NASA JSC Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). This abstract describes several examples of this integration, including Structure of RealTime Science Integration, the development of the EVA Science Officer Flight Controller Position, the development and testing of the Science Evaluation Room, and the development of Training for Artemis Science Teams.

K E Young↗

Modeling of Particle Transport and Impact in Transient, Multiphase Oxidizer-Rich Environments Using Computational Fluid Dynamics and Lagrangian Particle Tracking

Particle impacts from foreign object debris (FOD) in an oxidizer-rich environment have been shown to be a credible and significant risk for ignition and failure of components and vehicles. The risk of particle ignition is dependent on many factors, including particle impact velocity/energy and fluid composition (i.e. fluid phase, species presence, and state). Prediction of particle transport and particle impacts in relevant environments, including transient, multiphase flows, is important for assessing the risk and avoiding repeated expensive system level tests. The capability to model both the fluid dynamics and particle transport in complex three-dimensional geometries and multiphase environments has been developed at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in the propulsion fluid dynamic branch (ER42) by utilizing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and Lagrangian particle tracking. Using CFD tools, including density-based Loci/CHEM with a cavitation model and pressure-based Loci/STREAM with a volume of fluids model, MSFC/ER42 has provided particle impact predictions to multiple projects for oxidizer compatibility assessments. Simulations of transient, multiphase environments such as liquid slugs flowing through tubing and cavitating flow in valves have been completed alongside one-way coupled Lagrangian particle tracking to predict particle impacts.

M.V. Fischels↗

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗

Full Lunar Surface Visualization and Simulation Platform

This project created a visualization and simulation software platform for the entire lunar surface. Given the polar Artemis landing targets, the challenging terrain, lighting, and associated integrated crew / vehicle risk assessment, a more integrated approach to mission safety certification, potentially impacting equipment design and crew activity is required. This integrated capability will enable Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), Flight Operations (FOD), and EVA to effectively collaborate to reduce human lunar exploration operational risk utilizing the identical tools to perform mission planning, rehearsal simulations, and providing the Safety Review Panel with integrated risk analysis capability.

information fusion↗

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

MAGIK Animation of Robotic Operations for Flight SpaceX-30 to ISS

The MAGIK Robotic analysis team provides kinematic feasibility assessments for the ISS and has produced an animation to evaluate Extravehicular Robotics (EVR) activities for the SpaceX (SpX)-30 flight. Shown EVR activities are preliminary and final operations will be developed by Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) Robotics (ROBO). The animation also displays the current ISS configuration at the time of the flight. Flight SpX-30 includes a SpaceX Cargo Dragon vehicle docked to Node 2 Zenith (N2Z) International Docking Adapter (IDA) and consists of the delivery of the Pump Module (PM) Integrated Assembly (IA). Robotic operations shown include the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) based on the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) for Trunk extraction of the PM IA, maneuvering to the External Stowage Platform 3 (ESP-3), temporary removal of the Control Moment Gyro (CMG) from ESP-3 Site 4, install of the PM IA at ESP-3 Site 3 and re-install of the CMG to ESP-3 Site4. There is no disposal payload for this flight.

ISS↗

Artemis Geology Training Introduction to A3GT

Artemis Internal Science Training Team partners closely with the xEVA Trainers and Crew Training Office in FOD; together, all parties acknowledge the importance of integrated science and operations skill-building within training for surface operations.

Geology↗

Detection and Localization of a Fold, Twist, and Overlaps within Tow-Steered Composite Panels During Autoclave Cure

Because of the anisotropic properties of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CRFP) composites, novel layup architectures, such as tow-steering, can be used to tailor mechanical properties of the composite structure to the loading condition during use. In this work, a tow-steered composite panel was de-signed, laid up using the Integrated Structural Assembly of Advanced Com-posites (ISAAC) automated fiber placement (AFP) machine located at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), and cured while simultaneously be-ing inspected using an ultrasonic inspection system operating inside the auto-clave. The composite panel contained overlaps that are intrinsic to the tow-steered design and had intentionally introduced layup defects including folds, wrinkles, splices, tow twists, foreign object debris (FOD), gaps, and additional overlaps. The inspections during the cure cycle focused on the ar-ea within the laminate containing a fold, a twist, and intrinsic overlaps. The ultrasonic inspections performed during the cure cycle were analyzed and compared to post-cure ultrasonic inspections of the entire laminate.

Composites↗

MAGIK Animation of Robotic Operations for Flight SpaceX-31 to ISS

The MAGIK Robotics analysis team provides kinematic feasibility assessments for the ISS and has produced an animation to showcase Extravehicular Robotics (EVR) activities for Flight SpaceX (SpX)-31. Shown EVR activities were developed by Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) Robotics (ROBO). The animation also displays the current ISS configuration at the time of the flight in Increment 72. Flight SpX-31 includes a SpaceX Cargo Dragon vehicle docked to Node 2 Forward (N2F) and consists of the delivery of the Coronal Observation Experiment (CODEX) payload. Robotic operations shown include utilization the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) based on the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), survey of the cargo trunk, extraction of CODEX from the trunk, stow of SPDM, SSRMS walkoff to the Mobile Remote Servicer (MRS) Base System (MBS), SSRMS grapple of SPDM, translate of the Mobile Transporter (MT), and install of CODEX to Express Logistics Carrier 3 (ELC-3) Site 3. There is no disposal payload for this flight.

ISS↗

Detection and Localization of a Fold, Twist, and Overlaps within Tow-Steered Composite Panels During Autoclave Cure

Because of the anisotropic properties of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CRFP) composites, novel layup architectures, such as tow-steering, can be used to tailor mechanical properties of the composite structure to the loading condition during use. In this work, a tow-steered composite panel was de-signed, laid up using the Integrated Structural Assembly of Advanced Com-posites (ISAAC) automated fiber placement (AFP) machine located at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), and cured while simultaneously be-ing inspected using an ultrasonic inspection system operating inside the auto-clave. The composite panel contained overlaps that are intrinsic to the tow-steered design and had intentionally introduced layup defects including folds, wrinkles, splices, tow twists, foreign object debris (FOD), gaps, and additional overlaps. The inspections during the cure cycle focused on the ar-ea within the laminate containing a fold, a twist, and intrinsic overlaps. The ultrasonic inspections performed during the cure cycle were analyzed and compared to post-cure ultrasonic inspections of the entire laminate.

Composites↗

Monte Carlo Treatment of Displacement Damage in Bandgap Engineered HgCdTe Detectors

The conclusion are: 1. Description of NIEL calculation for short, mid, and longwave HgCdTe material compositions. 2. Full recoil spectra details captured and analyzed Importance of variance in high Z materials. 3. Can be applied directly to calculate damage distributions in arrays. 4. Future work will provide comparisons of measured array damage with calculated NIEL and damage energy distributions. 5. Technique to assess the full recoil spectrum behavior is extendable to other materials.

Fodness, Bryan C.↗

Monte Carlo Techniques for Calculations of Charge Deposition and Displacement Damage from Protons in Visible and Infrared Sensor Arrays

This slide presentation examines motivation for Monte Carlo methods, charge deposition in sensor arrays, displacement damage calculations, and future work. The discussion of charge deposition sensor arrays includes Si active pixel sensor APS arrays and LWIR HgCdTe FPAs. The discussion of displacement damage calculations includes nonionizing energy loss (NIEL), HgCdTe NIEL calculation results including variance, and implications for damage in HgCdTe detector arrays.

Marshall, Paul↗