SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Supportability”

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 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2008

Lunar Outpost Life Support Trade Studies

Engineering trade-off studies of life support system architecture and technology options were conducted for potential lunar surface mission scenarios within NASA's Constellation Program. The scenarios investigated are based largely on results of the NASA Lunar Architecture Team (LAT) Phase II study. In particular, the possibility of Hosted Sortie missions, the high cost of power during eclipse periods, and the potential to reduce life support consumables through scavenging, in-situ resources, and alternative EVA technologies were all examined. These trade studies were performed within the Systems Integration, Modeling and Analysis (SIMA) element of NASA's Exploration Life Support (ELS) technology development project. The tools and methodology used in the study are described briefly, followed by a discussion of mission scenarios, life support technology options and results presented in terms of equivalent system mass for various regenerative life support technologies and architectures. Three classes of repeated or extended lunar surface missions were investigated in this study along with several life support resource scenarios for each mission class. Individual mission durations of 14 days, 90 days and 180 days were considered with 10 missions assumed for each at a rate of 2 missions per year. The 14-day missions represent a class of Hosted Sortie missions where a pre-deployed and potentially mobile habitat provides life support for multiple crews at one or more locations. The 90-day and 180-day missions represent lunar outpost expeditions with a larger fixed habitat. The 180-day missions assume continuous human presence and must provide life support through eclipse periods of up to 122 hours while the 90-day missions are planned for best-case periods of nearly continuous sunlight. This paper investigates system optimization within the assumptions of each scenario and addresses how the scenario selected drives the life support system to different designs. Subsequently, these analysis results can be used to determine which technologies may be good choices throughout a broad range of architectures.

Lange, Kevin E.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Environmental Control and Life Support Integration Strategy for 6-Crew Operations Stephanie Duchesne

The International Space Station (ISS) crew compliment has increased in size from 3 to 6 crew members . In order to support this increase in crew on ISS, the United States on-orbit Segment (USOS) has been outfitted with a suite of regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) hardware including an Oxygen Generation System(OGS), Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC), and a Water Recovery System (WRS). The WRS includes the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA). With this additional life support hardware, the ISS has achieved full redundancy in its on-orbit life support system between the USOS and Russian Segment (RS). The additional redundancy created by the Regenerative ECLS hardware creates the opportunity for independent support capabilities between segments, and for the first time since the start of ISS, the necessity to revise Life Support strategy agreements. Independent operating strategies coupled with the loss of the Space Shuttle supply and return capabilities in 2010 offer new and unique challenges. This paper will discuss the evolution of the ISS Life Support hardware strategy in support of 6-Crew on ISS, as well as the continued work that is necessary to ensure the support of crew and ISS Program objectives through the life of station.

Duchesne, Stephanie M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Environmental Control and Life Support Integration Strategy for 6-Crew Operations

The International Space Station (ISS) crew complement has increased in size from 3 to 6 crew members. In order to support this increase in crew on ISS, the United States on-orbit Segment (USOS) has been outfitted with a suite of regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) hardware including an Oxygen Generation System (OGS), Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC), and a Water Recovery System (WRS). The WRS includes the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA). With this additional life support hardware, the ISS has achieved full redundancy in its on-orbit life support system between the t OS and Russian Segment (RS). The additional redundancy created by the Regenerative ECLS hardware creates the opportunity for independent support capabilities between segments, and for the first time since the start of ISS, the necessity to revise Life Support strategy agreements. Independent operating strategies coupled with the loss of the Space Shuttle supply and return capabilities in 2010 offer new and unique challenges. This paper will discuss the evolution of the ISS Life Support hardware strategy in support of 6-Crew on ISS, as well as the continued work that is necessary to ensure the support of crew and ISS Program objectives through the life of station

Duchesne, Stephanie M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mission Operations, Cubed: NASA Marshall Operations Support for SmallSats

SmallSats have come a long way since the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center supported its first “minisatellite” mission in 2010. And just as SmallSats themselves have evolved in those 12 years, so too has the HOSC’s mission support for SmallSats. Marshall Space Flight Center has a long history with payload and mission operations, including support for the Apollo missions to the moon, the Space Shuttle program, and 21 years of continuous around-the-clock science operations support for research aboard the International Space Station. Today, the HOSC is a multi-tenant facility, supporting not only ISS, but also NASA’s Commercial Crew program, the Space Launch System, the Hubble and Chandra observatories and others – including multiple SmallSat missions. Two SmallSat solar sail missions will be among those taking advantage of the HOSC’s resources for planning, training for and executing mission operations – the Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout and Solar Cruiser missions. One of 10 6U CubeSats manifest on the Artemis I launch of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket this year, NEA Scout’s three-year mission will be supported through a more traditional operations concept, with a dedicated Flight Controller staff operating within the HOSC. Scheduled to launch as part of the Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP) in February 2025, Solar Cruiser’s 11-month mission will take a next-generation approach to operations by utilizing a multi-mission flight controller concept, as well as Marshall’s Telescience Resource Kit (TreK). TreK provides a suite of software applications and libraries that allow the Mission Operations Center to serve as an in-house ground system which incorporates remote and automation capability options for engineers and scientists. This presentation will compare the approaches the HOSC will use to support these two missions as a way of demonstrating the array of options NASA MSFC offers for operations support for CubeSat and SmallSat missions.

Darren S Wallace↗

NASA NTRS2023

Development of Two High-Energy Bus ‘Cores’ for Rapid Support of Low-TRL and Educational Payloads: A Software-Configured EPS Combined with Flexible C&DH

For several years the TechEdSat flight series (TES-n), developed by the Nano Orbital Workshop (NOW) group at NASA Ames, has relied upon an in-house developed unit to serve both EPS (Electrical Power System) and C&DH (Command and Data Handling) roles along with low data-rate telemetry functions, i.e., serving as the ‘core’ of the spacecraft bus. This ‘core’ has a considerable task given the rapid cadence of the TES program and the typically low-TRL of payloads; configurability and compatibility are key to prevent mission-specific hardware. However, at only 15 watts the current core has become insufficient to support the program’s growing missions and increasingly demanding payloads. To this end, the NOW program is developing new cores to support two TES mission classes: a single-PCB ‘MiniCore’ designed to support 80-watt missions 6U or smaller in LEO, and a three-PCB, radiation-tolerant ‘StackCore’ designed to support 6U and larger missions over 500 watts in LEO and beyond. The ‘MiniCore’ design consists of three main segments: a processor-agnostic C&DH, a software-configured EPS, and a backup low data-rate radio. The design philosophy was to enable rapid-manufacture in a turbulent supply chain, hence the design consists of COTS parts with a focus on those able to be drop-in replaced with radiation-tolerant versions when demanded by the mission. As a single PC-104 sized circuit board, power density and ease of integration also dominated design, demanding the use of modern features such as single-point USB-C for easy charging and monitoring of the spacecraft on the ground. The ‘MiniCore’ can support 80 watts of load, 140 watt-hours of storage, and over 20 watts of optimized solar generation with extensive power monitoring throughout. The ‘MiniCore’ supports one battery pack, six solar-panels, six loads, five actuators, Iridium SBD, and an internal 802.15.4 network. Additionally, the processor-agnostic design can accept any PJRC Teensy 3.x or Adafruit Feather microcontroller unit to enable processor scaling with mission requirements or environment. It is expected a development unit of this design will be completed before conference. The ‘StackCore’ design consists of three stacked PC-104 sized circuit boards: one dedicated to power generation and storage, one dedicated to power distribution, and one dedicated to C&DH tasks. This delineation is necessary to support the transition from highly integrated ICs to discrete analog circuitry, enabling a primarily analog control power system able to operate without software in a radiation environment with finer monitoring compared to the ‘MiniCore’ design. The planned base architecture supports over 500 watts of load, 250 watt-hours of storage, and over 80 watts of optimized solar generation. The power distribution board allows for the use of daughter cards hosting custom converters or interfaces for payloads, in addition to the software-configured supplies used on the ‘MiniCore’. This core stack will be managed by a Vorago ARM M4 microcontroller and support the same wireless communications as the ‘MiniCore’, with optional integration of a NOW S-band radio and attitude determination sensors for ‘black box’ functionality. It is expected the prototype will still be in development during conference.

Spacecraft↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of Two High-Energy Bus ‘Cores’ for Rapid Support of Low-TRL and Educational Payloads: A Software-Configured EPS Combined with Flexible C&DH

Spacecraft↗

NASA NTRS2014

Life Support for Deep Space and Mars

How should life support for deep space be developed? The International Space Station (ISS) life support system is the operational result of many decades of research and development. Long duration deep space missions such as Mars have been expected to use matured and upgraded versions of ISS life support. Deep space life support must use the knowledge base incorporated in ISS but it must also meet much more difficult requirements. The primary new requirement is that life support in deep space must be considerably more reliable than on ISS or anywhere in the Earth-Moon system, where emergency resupply and a quick return are possible. Due to the great distance from Earth and the long duration of deep space missions, if life support systems fail, the traditional approaches for emergency supply of oxygen and water, emergency supply of parts, and crew return to Earth or escape to a safe haven are likely infeasible. The Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) maintenance approach used by ISS is unsuitable for deep space with ORU's as large and complex as those originally provided in ISS designs because it minimizes opportunities for commonality of spares, requires replacement of many functional parts with each failure, and results in substantial launch mass and volume penalties. It has become impractical even for ISS after the shuttle era, resulting in the need for ad hoc repair activity at lower assembly levels with consequent crew time penalties and extended repair timelines. Less complex, more robust technical approaches may be needed to meet the difficult deep space requirements for reliability, maintainability, and reparability. Developing an entirely new life support system would neglect what has been achieved. The suggested approach is use the ISS life support technologies as a platform to build on and to continue to improve ISS subsystems while also developing new subsystems where needed to meet deep space requirements.

life support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in technology development, ground testing, and ISS technology demonstrations within the NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) community. This paper provides a technology development update in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. Technologies for exploration missions must be reliable in their operation which support crewed mission phases. However, they also need to be put into a reduced use or dormant states to support uncrewed mission phases and then successfully and reliably returned to a nominal state to support crew. Multi-year demonstration of systems operation across this range of conditions are essential to mission success. Project overviews will include how the current activity supports the goal of multi-year demonstrations, planned follow-on activities, and what type of exploration mission elements are targeted for infusion. Technologies must be demonstrated and validated early enough to inform early exploration element milestone reviews (mission concept reviews, systems requirement reviews and no later than preliminary design reviews) so that supporting vehicle systems can also be matured. Consequently, for low technology readiness activities, it is important to also identify which mission elements they might infuse into and how they may offer potential operational, dormancy, or mass benefits. While low TRL technology timelines may not support initial mission needs, early infusion is still reasonable with sufficient testing to validate performance and reliability.

Life Support↗

DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Transport and Storage Planning and Viability Support Tools

The EDX disCO2ver Carbon Transport and Storage Planning and Viability Support Tools are made up of the Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool (CS PlanIT, Justman et al. 2024) and the Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach Support Tool (CS TVA). Together, these tools support data access to support understanding data availability to support planning efforts for carbon transport and storage. The Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool (CS PlanIT) is an online web mapping application designed to help users explore, query, and evaluate multiple data layers to support and accelerate carbon storage resource and feasibility assessments and planning efforts. CS PlanIT currently contains a range of datasets associated with geologic, technical, and infrastructure factors. The data sets can be filtered geographically for an area of interest to update statistics and charts within the dashboard. The dashboard is divided into different sections called widgets, relating to different steps in the carbon storage planning process. The resources in this submission include a link to PlanIT, as well as a data catalog and link to user documentation. The original citation for the CS PlanIT tool, which has now been integrated into the toolset here, was: - Devin Justman, Scott Pantaleone, Maneesh Sharma, Lucy Romeo, Paige Morkner, CS PlanIT (Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool) , 6/28/2024, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/cs-planit-carbon-storage-planning-inquiry-tool, DOI: 10.18141/2377953 The Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach Support (CS TVA) Tool displays spatial data availability for the many components of Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) technical viability assessment (Creason al 2025). Identifying sites suitable for GCS requires evaluating the intersection of myriad factors, including reservoir conditions, subsurface and surface hazards, infrastructure requirements, and energy community metrics. The technical viability of a site can only be confirmed for instances where all these factors have data available, and where those data support viability. Additional Resources related to the Technical Viability Assessment Tool: - Julia Mulhern, Casey White, Araceli Lara, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Zachary Jackson, Jacob Shay, Gabriel Creason, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Database, 3/26/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/edx4ccs-carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-database , DOI:10.18141/1984655 - Julia Mulhern, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Gabriel Creason, Casey White, Araceli Lara, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Zach Jackson, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Matrix, 3/27/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-cs-tva-matrix , DOI: 10.18141/2539979 - Gabriel Creason, Zach Jackson, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Julia Mulhern, Casey White, Araceli Lara, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Data Availability Results Database, 3/27/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-cs-tva-data-availability-results-database, DOI:10.18141/2538557

Carbon storage↗

NASA NTRS1972

An experimental-theoretical study of free vibrations of plates on elastic point supports

A theoretical and experimental study is made to investigate the effect on plate vibrations of varying the stiffness of corner elastic point supports. A theoretical model is developed using a Rayleigh-Ritz analysis which approximates the plate mode shapes as products of free-free beam modes. The elastic point supports are modelled both as massless translational springs, and springs with tip masses. The tip masses are included to better represent the experimental supports. An experiment is constructed using the bending stiffness of horizontal beams to support a square plate at its four corners. The stiffness of these supports can be varied over such a range that the plate fundamental frequency is lowered to 40% of the rigid support frequency. The variation with support stiffness of the frequencies of the first eight plate modes is measured, and compared with the theoretical results. The plate mode shapes for rigid supports are analyzed using holographic interferometry. There is excellent agreement between the theoretical and experimental results, except for high plate modes where the theoretical model is demonstrated to be inadequate.

Leuner, T. R.↗

NASA NTRS1983

Optimum design of dewar supports

A number of struts or straps support a rigid, delicate mass (dewar) which must be successfully launched and maintained in orbit for a long time at very low temperature. The support system must be designed so that the heat flow into the mass is minimized subject to constraints on minimum allowable natural frequency of the mass during launch, minimum natural frequency of the mass in orbit, maximum allowable stress in any support member during launch, and no buckling or slackening of any support member during launch. Optimum designs are obtained via the CONMIN program for a support system consisting of simple tension straps and support systems with passive thermal disconnect features by means of which the thermal conductance is greatly reduced during the transition from the launch condition to the orbital condition. The theory indicates that either of the optimized thermal disconnect support systems will allow the mass to stay cold far longer than will the optimized tension strap support system.

Bushnell, D.↗

NASA NTRS1993

The Columbus logistics support at the APMC: Requirements and implementation aspects

This paper focuses on the logistics support to be provided by the APM Center (APMC). Among the Columbus ground infrastructures, this center is tasked to provide logistics, sustaining engineering and P/L integration support to the ongoing missions of the APM, i.e. the Columbus Laboratory attached to the Freedom Space Station. The following is illustrated: an analysis of the requirements that are levied on the logistics support of the APM; how such requirements are reflected in the corresponding support to be available on-ground and at APMC; the functional components of the APMC logistics support and how such components interact each other; how the logistics support function interfaces with the other functions of the ground support; and how the logistics support is being designed in terms of resources (such as hardware, data bases, etc.). Emphasis is given to the data handling aspects and to the related data bases that will constitute for the logistics activities the fundamental source of information during the APM planned lifetime. Functional and physical architectures, together with trades for possible implementation, are addressed. Commonalities with other centers are taken into account and recommendations are made for possible reuse of tools already developed in the C/D phase. Finally, programmatic considerations are discussed for the actual implementation of the center.

Canu, C.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Starship Life Support

The design and mass cost of a starship and its life support system are investigated. The mission plan for a multi generational interstellar voyage to colonize a new planet is used to describe the starship design, including the crew habitat, accommodations, and life support. Only current technology is assumed. Highly reliable life support systems can be provided with reasonably small additional mass, suggesting that they can support long duration missions. Bioregenerative life support, growing crop plants that provide food, water, and oxygen, has been thought to need less mass than providing stored food for long duration missions. The large initial mass of hydroponics systems is paid for over time by saving the mass of stored food. However, the yearly logistics mass required to support a bioregenerative system exceeds the mass of food solids it produces, so that supplying stored dehydrated food always requires less mass than bioregenerative food production. A mixed system that grows about half the food and supplies the other half dehydrated has advantages that allow it to breakeven with stored dehydrated food in about 66 years. However, moderate increases in the hydroponics system mass to achieve high reliability, such as adding spares that double the system mass and replacing the initial system every 100 years, increase the mass cost of bioregenerative life support. In this case, the high reliability half food growing, half food supplying system does not breakeven for 389 years. An even higher reliability half and half system, with three times original system mass and replacing the system every 50 years, never breaks even. Growing food for starship life support requires more mass than providing dehydrated food, even for multigeneration voyages of hundreds of years. The benefits of growing some food may justify the added mass cost. Much more efficient recycling food production is wanted but may not be possible. A single multigenerational interstellar voyage to colonize a new planet would have cost similar to that of the Apollo program. Cost is reduced if a small crew travels slowly and lands with minimal equipment. We can go to the stars!

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Technology Development Roadmap

The Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Technology Development Roadmap is a guide for developing the technologies needed to enable the supportable, sustainable, and affordable exploration of the Moon and other destinations beyond Earth. Supportability is defined in terms of space maintenance, repair, and related logistics. This report considers the supportability lessons learned from NASA and the Department of Defense. Lunar Outpost supportability needs are summarized, and a supportability technology strategy is established to make the transition from high logistics dependence to logistics independence. This strategy will enable flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems and exploit opportunities in an environment of extreme resource scarcity and isolation. The supportability roadmap defines the general technology selection criteria. Technologies are organized into three categories: diagnostics, test, and verification; maintenance and repair; and scavenge and recycle. Furthermore, "embedded technologies" and "process technologies" are used to designate distinct technology types with different development cycles. The roadmap examines the current technology readiness level and lays out a four-phase incremental development schedule with selection decision gates. The supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop technologies with the widest possible capability and utility while minimizing the impact on crew time and training and remaining within the time and cost constraints of the program.

Oeftering, Richard C.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Space Transportation Infrastructure Supported By Propellant Depots

A space transportation infrastructure is described that utilizes propellant depots to support all foreseeable missions in the Earth-Moon vicinity and deep space out to Mars. The infrastructure utilizes current expendable launch vehicles such as the Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V, and Falcon 9, for all crew, cargo, and propellant launches to orbit. Propellant launches are made to a Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) Depot and an Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 1 (L1) Depot to support new reusable in-space transportation vehicles. The LEO Depot supports missions to Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) for satellite servicing, and to L1 for L1 Depot missions. The L1 Depot supports Lunar, Earth-Sun L2 (ESL2), Asteroid, and Mars missions. A Mars Orbital Depot is also described to support ongoing Mars missions. New concepts for vehicle designs are presented that can be launched on current 5-meter diameter expendable launch vehicles. These new reusable vehicle concepts include a LEO Depot, L1 Depot, and Mars Orbital Depot based on International Space Station (ISS) heritage hardware. The high-energy depots at L1 and Mars orbit are compatible with, but do not require, electric propulsion tug use for propellant and/or cargo delivery. New reusable in-space crew transportation vehicles include a Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) for crew transportation between the LEO Depot and the L1 Depot, a new reusable Lunar Lander for crew transportation between the L1 Depot and the lunar surface, and a Deep Space Habitat (DSH) to support crew missions from the L1 Depot to ESL2, Asteroid, and Mars destinations. A 6 meter diameter Mars lander concept is presented that can be launched without a fairing based on the Delta IV heavy Payload Planners Guide, which indicates feasibility of a 6.5 meter fairing. This lander would evolve to re-usable operations when propellant production is established on Mars. Figure 1 provides a summary of the possible missions this infrastructure can support. Summary mission profiles are presented for each primary mission capability. These profiles are the basis for propellant loads, numbers of vehicles/stages and launches for each mission capability. Data includes the number of launches required for each mission utilizing current expendable launch vehicle systems, and concluding remarks include ideas for reducing the number of launches through incorporation of heavy-lift launch vehicles, solar electric propulsion, and other transportation support concepts.

Smitherman, David↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human Exploration System Test-Bed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) Support of Future NASA Deep-Space Missions

The Engineering Directorate at the NASA - Johnson Space Center is outfitting a 20-Foot diameter hypobaric chamber in Building 7 to support future deep-space Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS) research as part of the Human Exploration System Test-bed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) Project. This human-rated chamber is the only NASA facility that has the unique experience, chamber geometry, infrastructure, and support systems capable of conducting this research. The chamber was used to support Gemini, Apollo, and SkyLab Missions. More recently, it was used to conduct 30-, 60-, and 90-day human ECLSS closed-loop testing in the 1990s to support the International Space Station and life support technology development. NASA studies show that both planetary surface and deep-space transit crew habitats will be 3-4 story cylindrical structures driven by human occupancy volumetric needs and launch vehicle constraints. The HESTIA facility offers a 3-story, 20-foot diameter habitat consistent with the studies' recommendations. HESTIA operations follow stringent processes by a certified test team that including human testing. Project management, analysis, design, acquisition, fabrication, assembly and certification of facility build-ups are available to support this research. HESTIA offers close proximity to key stakeholders including astronauts, Human Research Program (who direct space human research for the agency), Mission Operations, Safety & Mission Assurance, and Engineering Directorate. The HESTIA chamber can operate at reduced pressure and elevated oxygen environments including those proposed for deep-space exploration. Data acquisition, power, fluids and other facility resources are available to support a wide range of research. Recently completed HESTIA research consisted of unmanned testing of ECLSS technologies. Eventually, the HESTIA research will include humans for extended durations at reduced pressure and elevated oxygen to demonstrate very high reliability of critical ECLSS and other technologies.

Marmolejo, Jose↗

NASA NTRS2017

Supportability Challenges, Metrics, and Key Decisions for Future Human Spaceflight

Future crewed missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) represent a logistical challenge that is unprecedented in human space flight. Astronauts will travel farther and stay in space for longer than any previous mission, far from timely abort or resupply from Earth. Under these conditions, supportability { defined as the set of system characteristics that influence the logistics and support required to enable safe and effective operations of systems { will be a much more significant driver of space system lifecycle properties than it has been in the past. This paper presents an overview of supportability for future human space flight. The particular challenges of future missions are discussed, with the differences between past, present, and future missions highlighted. The relationship between supportability metrics and mission cost, performance, schedule, and risk is also discussed. A set of pro- posed strategies for managing supportability is presented (including reliability growth, uncertainty reduction, level of repair, commonality, redundancy, In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) (including the use of material recycling and In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) for spares and maintenance items), reduced complexity, and spares inventory decisions such as the use of predeployed or cached spares - along with a discussion of the potential impacts of each of those strategies. References are provided to various sources that describe these supportability metrics and strategies, as well as associated modeling and optimization techniques, in greater detail. Overall, supportability is an emergent system characteristic and a holistic challenge for future system development. System designers and mission planners must carefully consider and balance the supportability metrics and decisions described in this paper in order to enable safe and effective beyond-LEO human space flight.

Owens, Andrew C.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metrics in Space Life Support Technology Selection

Engineering metrics are useful in space life support technology selection, but they must be carefully used. Metrics are only part of a complete system trade-off. Metrics do harm if they cause neglect of other important technical, organizational, or intuitive decision factors. Two metrics have damaged space life support, closure and Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM). Closure measures the fraction of the required system inputs that are produced by recycling system outputs. Increasing closure produces diminishing returns and becomes increasingly expensive. Increasing closure does not directly contribute to providing better life support. ESM measures the total launch mass required to provide life support. ESM includes the mass of the system hardware and of its power, cooling, pressurized volume, spares, and logistics. ESM predicts launch costs, but recently launch costs have been reduced by a factor of 20 or more. System development cost for space hardware is often much greater than launch cost. The past nearly exclusive use of ESM has led to the neglect of Life Cycle Cost (LCC), reliability, cost, and the other engineering factors. Closure and ESM have misguided space life support technology selection for more than twenty years and have adversely affected the expenditure of 100’s of millions of dollars. Metrics can be effectively used three ways in space life support technology selection: 1. A small set of key engineering metrics for preliminary screening. 2. A full set of engineering to guide technical selection. 3. Combining engineering metrics with organizational, political, and intuitive decision factors to understand technology selection. The past emphasis on closure and ESM served to support recycling life support over resupply and built on the intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.

Harry W Jones↗