SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Policy support”

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 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

Initial Considerations for Navigation and Flight Dynamics of a Crewed Near-Earth Object Mission

A crewed mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO) was recently identified as a NASA Space Policy goal and priority. In support of this goal, a study was conducted to identify the initial considerations for performing the navigation and flight dynamics tasks of this mission class. Although missions to a NEO are not new, the unique factors involved in human spaceflight present challenges that warrant special examination. During the cruise phase of the mission, one of the most challenging factors is the noisy acceleration environment associated with a crewed vehicle. Additionally, the presence of a human crew necessitates a timely return trip, which may need to be expedited in an emergency situation where the mission is aborted. Tracking, navigation, and targeting results are shown for sample human-class trajectories to NEOs. Additionally, the benefit of in-situ navigation beacons on robotic precursor missions is presented. This mission class will require a longer duration flight than Apollo and, unlike previous human missions, there will likely be limited communication and tracking availability. This will necessitate the use of more onboard navigation and targeting capabilities. Finally, the rendezvous and proximity operations near an asteroid will be unlike anything previously attempted in a crewed spaceflight. The unknown gravitational environment and physical surface properties of the NEO may cause the rendezvous to behave differently than expected. Symbiosis of the human pilot and onboard navigation/targeting are presented which give additional robustness to unforeseen perturbations.

Holt, Greg N.↗

NASA NTRS2011

A Human Factors Approach to Bridging Systems and Introducing New Technologies

The application of human factors in aviation has grown to cover a wide range of disciplines and methods capable of assessing human-systems integration at many levels. For example, at the individual level, pilot workload may be studied while at the team level, coordinated workload distribution may be the focal point. At the organizational level, the way in which individuals and teams are supported by training and standards, policies and procedures may introduce additional, relevant topics. A consideration of human factors at each level contributes to our understanding of successes and failures in pilot performance, but this system focused on the flight deck alone -- is only one part of the airspace system. In the FAA's NextGen plan to overhaul the National Airspace System (NAS), new capabilities will enhance flightdeck systems (pilots), flight operations centers (dispatchers) and air traffic control systems (controllers and air traffic managers). At a minimum, the current roles and responsibilities of these three systems are likely to change. Since increased automation will be central to many of the enhancements, the role of automation is also likely to change. Using NextGen examples, a human factors approach for bridging complex airspace systems will be the main focus of this presentation. It is still crucial to consider the human factors within each system, but the successful implementation of new technologies in the NAS requires an understanding of the collaborations that occur when these systems intersect. This human factors approach to studying collaborative systems begins with detailed task descriptions within each system to establish a baseline of the current operations. The collaborative content and context are delineated through the review of regulatory and advisory materials, letters of agreement, policies, procedures and documented practices. Field observations and interviews also help to fill out the picture. Key collaborative functions across systems are identified and placed on a phase-of-flight timeline including information requirements, decision authority and use of automation, as well as level of frequency and criticality.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Advancing Aeronautics: A Decision Framework for Selecting Research Agendas

Publicly funded research has long played a role in the development of aeronautics, ranging from foundational research on airfoils to development of the air-traffic control system. Yet more than a century after the research and development of successful controlled, sustained, heavier-than-air flight vehicles, there are questions over the future of aeronautics research. The field of aeronautics is relatively mature, technological developments within it have become more evolutionary, and funding decisions are sometimes motivated by the continued pursuit of these evolutionary research tracks rather than by larger factors. These developments raise questions over whether public funding of aeronautics research continues to be appropriate or necessary and at what levels. Tightened federal budgets and increasing calls to address other public demands make these questions sharper still. To help it address the questions of appropriate directions for publicly funded aeronautics research, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) asked the RAND Corporation to assess the elements required to develop a strategic view of aeronautics research opportunities; identify candidate aeronautic grand challenges, paradigms, and concepts; outline a framework for evaluating them; and exercise the framework as an example of how to use it. Accordingly, this research seeks to address these questions: What aeronautics research should be supported by the U.S. government? What compelling and desirable benefits drive government-supported research? How should the government--especially NASA--make decisions about which research to support? Advancing aeronautics involves broad policy and decisionmaking challenges. Decisions involve tradeoffs among competing perspectives, uncertainties, and informed judgment.

AERONAUTICS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Global Carbon Budget 2016

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere the global carbon budget is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1(sigma), reflecting the current capacity to characterize the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006-2015), EFF was 9.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, ELUC 1.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr,GATM 4.5+/-0.1 GtC/yr, SOCEAN 2.6+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND 3.1+/-0.9 GtC/yr. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9+/-0.5 GtC/yr, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8/yr that took place during 2006-2015.Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, GATM was 6.3+/-0.2 GtC/yr, SOCEAN was 3.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND was 1.9+/-0.9 GtC/yr. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006-2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4+/-0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2% (range of -1.0 to +1.8% ) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Nino conditions of 2015-2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565+/-55 GtC (2075+/-205 GtCO2) for 1870-2016, about 75% from EFF and 25% from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set.

Quéré, Corinne Le↗

NASA NTRS2018

Fe(3): An Evaluation Tool for Low-Altitude Air Traffic Operations

The concepts of unmanned aircraft system traffic management (UTM) and urban air mobility (UAM) are introducing high-density operations in low altitude airspace in closer proximity to populated areas than conventional high-altitude air traffic. The Flexible engine for Fast-time Evaluation of Flight Environments (Fe (sup 3)) provides the capability of statistically analyzing the high-density, high-fidelity, and low-altitude traffic system under numerous scenarios, such that stake holders can study impacts of factors in the low-altitude high-density traffic system and define requirements, policies, and protocols needed to support a safe yet efficient traffic system, and even assess operational risks and optimize flight schedules without conducting infeasible and cost-prohibitive flight tests that involve a large volume of aerial vehicles. This work provides an introduction to this simulation tool including its architecture and various models involved. Its performance and sample application in UAM and UTM are also presented.

Collision Avoidance↗

NASA NTRS2018

Fe3: An Evaluation Tool for Low-Altitude Air Traffic Operations

Trajectory Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2019

Fe(exp3) - A Monte Carlo Simulation Capability for Evaluation of New Air Traffic Management Concepts

The concepts of unmanned aircraft system traffic management (UTM) and urban air mobility (UAM) introduce high-density operations in low-altitude airspace and will change the paradigm of the traditional air traffic system. The Flexible engine for Fast-time evaluation of Flight environments (Fe3) provides the capability of statistically analyzing high-density, high-fidelity, and low-altitude traffic system without conducting infeasible and cost-prohibitive flight tests that involve a large volume of aerial vehicles. With this simulation capability, stakeholders can study the impacts of critical factors, define requirements, policies, and protocols needed to support a safe yet efficient traffic system, assess operational risks, and optimize flight schedules. This work provides an introduction to this simulation tool including its architecture and various models involved. Its performance and applications in high density air traffic operations are also presented.

Paralellization↗

NASA NTRS2020

Integrated assessment of climate change impacts on crop productivity and income of commercial maize farms in northeast South Africa

Agriculture in South Africa sustains about 70% of the region’s population for food, income and employment, playing an important role for food security and the local economy. The focus of the study was the commercial maize farms of the Free State Province given their importance in the National economy. The Regional Integrated Assessment (phase I) was implemented to assess climate change and adaptation that links climate, crops, economic data and tools developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). In this context, the“system”is defined as a whole of agronomic and socio-economic factors. Within that framework three core questions were being evaluated: (i) Impacts of climate change under current system; (ii) Impacts of climate change under future system; (iii) The role of adaptation under climate change and the future system. Maize production will decrease between 10% to 16% as a result of projected climate impacts. Also, current agricultural production systems are negatively affected by climate change with an increase in poverty rates between 2% to 3%. The projected adoption of the adapted technology would result in positive increased net returns and a decrease in poverty rate of between 12%and 22%. The results of this study show that implementing adaptation measures and other strategies as indicated by the local stakeholders will have positive impacts on the agricultural production systems and can contribute to support and inform climate change policy decision making such as the development of National Adaptation Plans.

Integrated assessment↗

NASA NTRS2019

Global Carbon Budget 2019

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (E(FF)) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (E(LUC)), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S(OCEAN)) and terrestrial CO2 sink (S(LAND)) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B(IM)), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), E(FF) was 9.5±0.5 GtC/yr, E(LUC) 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, G(ATM) 4.9±0.02 GtC/yr (2.3±0.01 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) 2.5±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) 3.2±0.6 GtC/yr, with a budget imbalance B(IM) of 0.4 GtC/yr indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in E(FF) was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC/yr, reaching 10 GtC/yr for the first time in history, E(LUC) was 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC/yr (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, G(ATM) was 5.1±0.2 GtC/yr (2.4±0.1 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) was 2.6±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) was 3.5±0.7 GtC/yr, with a B(IM) of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in E(FF) of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC/yr persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).

global carbon budget 2019↗

NASA NTRS2022

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO 2 emissions (E FOS ) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E LUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO 2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G ATM ) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO 2 sink (S OCEAN ) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO 2 sink (S LAND ) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B IM ), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, E FOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E LUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr −1 , for a total anthropogenic CO 2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr −1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO 2 ). Also, for 2021, G ATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr −1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr −1 ), S OCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 , with a B IM of −0.6 GtC yr −1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E FOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO 2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO 2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO 2 flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).

Pierre Friedlingstein↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

WIS and WIGOS Metadata as the Foundation for a Sustainable Framework for Global Greenhouse Gas Watch Data Exchange

Metadata (data about data) is a critical component of data discovery, description, evaluation, documentation, and preservation. Developing and propagating metadata standards has been a longstanding area of activity in WMO and beyond. The WIS2 and WIGOS metadata models are being actively developed and maintained by dedicated task teams, established under the WMO Expert Team on Metadata. The metadata representations and vocabularies are governed by well-established processes within WMO. These standards are being used in a number of metadata/data exchange activities (e.g., WMO Information System 2.0 (WIS2), WIGOS (WMDR), Climate Data Management Systems (CMDS), etc.). It should also be noted that the application of the WIS2 and WIGOS standards fully support the WMO Unified Data Policy and open data policy as well as greatly enhance the value of observations by fostering data F.A.I.R.ness. Furthermore, the WMO metadata standards can serve as the foundation for a framework that will facilitate metadata mapping between the existing schemas used in well-established data centres, e.g., WMO WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases) and NOAA ObsPack (Observation Package Data Products) and to automate metadata exchange between data centres as well as with WMO. These activities will play a central role in integrating measurements sponsored by various member countries and organizations to provide a more comprehensive characterization of the temporal and spatial distribution of the greenhouse gases. At the same time, this metadata exchange can lead to member countries and partner organizations improving their current metadata collection process for data discoverability, interoperability, and (re)usability. This presentation will describe metadata activities in the context of WIS2 and WIGOS and how they apply to GGGW data integration via metadata mapping and exchange.

Gao Chen↗

NASA NTRS2024

Cost and Benefit Analysis of Mitigating, Tracking, and Remediating Orbital Debris

Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work, referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current analysis contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Jericho Locke↗

NASA NTRS2024

Cost and Benefit Analysis of Mitigating, Tracking, and Remediating Orbital Debris

Presentation accompanying the technical report with the same name. The abstract for the report and the full study is repeated below. Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work, referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current analysis contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Jericho Locke↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Cost and Benefit Analysis of Orbital Debris Remediation, Mitigation,Tracking, and Characterization

Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work(Colvin, Karcz, and Wusk. 2023), referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current paper summarizes the work of Locke and Colvin (2024), which contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Orbital Debris↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA’s planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective’s NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientiﬁc consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle. Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientiﬁc consensus, and to identify and ﬁll in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

James Benardini↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Planetary Protection Program to Assure Mission Safety and Success

NASA's planetary protection program seeks to understand and control harmful contamination of solar systems targets of exploration by terrestrial contamination and prevent harmful biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system by extraterrestrial life, should it exist. To accomplish these objective's NASA has developed a balanced safety and mission assurance strategy that leverages COSPAR Policy guidelines, workshops, scientific consensus, partnerships and international working groups to develop policy and implementation guidelines. Upcoming crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as robotic missions to small solar system bodies, Europa, Titan and Mars are some of the driving activities of astrobiological interest that continue to emphasize the importance of planetary protection throughout the project life cycle.Development of a responsive and updated agency planetary protection policy has been a focus area in supporting upcoming mission opportunities for exploration to include Mars sample return and crewed mission concepts. An extensive update of this policy is underway which encompasses crewed and robotic procedural polices, a general technical requirements standard, and an implementation handbook. During this timeframe NASA has been working with the international community to develop scientific consensus, and to identify and fill in knowledge gaps for developing balanced policy guidelines, incorporation of risk informed decision making and quantitative technical standards. NASA has developed a planetary protection roadmap as a technology management strategy to track and monitor the development of each knowledge gaps. The Committee of Space Research (COSPAR) Policy on Planetary Protection and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Committee of Planetary Protection are used to inform updates to the planetary protection polices and guidelines. This integrated strategy for planetary protection seeks to provide a transparent, structured approach for enabling missions, providing guidance for NASA and NASA partnered missions, and being responsive to the increased interest and activities in space exploration whilst maintaining an understanding and control of harmful contamination.

Planetary Protection↗

NASA NTRS2010

Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology for Moon and Mars Missions

In support of the U.S. Space Exploration Policy, focused cryogenic fluid management technology efforts are underway within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Under the auspices of the Exploration Technology Development Program, cryogenic fluid management technology efforts are being conducted by the Cryogenic Fluid Management Project. Cryogenic Fluid Management Project objectives are to develop storage, transfer, and handling technologies for cryogens to support high performance demands of lunar, and ultimately, Mars missions in the application areas of propulsion, surface systems, and Earth-based ground operations. The targeted use of cryogens and cryogenic technologies for these application areas is anticipated to significantly reduce propellant launch mass and required on-orbit margins, to reduce and even eliminate storage tank boil-off losses for long term missions, to economize ground pad storage and transfer operations, and to expand operational and architectural operations at destination. This paper organizes Cryogenic Fluid Management Project technology efforts according to Exploration Architecture target areas, and discusses the scope of trade studies, analytical modeling, and test efforts presently underway, as well as future plans, to address those target areas. The target areas are: liquid methane/liquid oxygen for propelling the Altair Lander Ascent Stage, liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen for propelling the Altair Lander Descent Stage and Ares V Earth Departure Stage, liquefaction, zero boil-off, and propellant scavenging for Lunar Surface Systems, cold helium and zero boil-off technologies for Earth-Based Ground Operations, and architecture definition studies for long term storage and on-orbit transfer and pressurization of LH2, cryogenic Mars landing and ascent vehicles, and cryogenic production via in situ resource utilization on Mars.

Doherty, Michael P.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Coordination of Mars Orbiting Assets to Support Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) Activities

NASA policy requires continuous telecommunications with missions during the execution of their critical events, which implies constraints on where missions to other planets may land or inject into orbit. JPL is working to establish a telecommunications network at Mars to provide contact with inbound missions to Mars and assets that have landed on the Martian surface, thus reducing the constraints on where critical events may be performed. Coordination of network assets is required to cover an inbound mission's critical event, such as EDL. This paper describes the development of a tool to evaluate EDL coverage capability of Mars network assets over a specified launch date/arrival date space.

Mars Network↗