Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Capability Challenge”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Degradation of Magnetic Materials for High-Temperature Active Magnetic Bearing Applications in CO₂-Based Environments

High-temperature Active Magnetic Bearings (AMBs) are a promising alternative to conventional bearings in hermetically sealed turbomachinery for supercritical CO₂ (sCO₂) systems. They offer reduced CO₂ leakage, lower windage losses, enhanced misalignment tolerance, reduced wear, and built-in diagnostic capabilities. A critical challenge, however, is ensuring long-term material stability in harsh CO₂-rich environments. This study investigated the degradation behavior of permanent and soft magnetic materials (Alnico 9C, Alnico 5-7C, SmCo 18-T550, Hiperco-50, and coated variants) after up to 6,000 hours of exposure in gaseous CO₂, sCO₂, or air at 450 °C and 550 °C. The evaluation included post-exposure mass change measurements, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, and magnetic property assessments. The results demonstrate oxidation rates, microstructural evolution, and retention of magnetic performance across conditions. The findings offer essential insights into the thermal corrosion behavior of magnetic materials under CO₂ rich environments and serve as a reference for material selection in AMB system designs.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

Resiliency is an aspirational metric, and it is a common goal for complex systems – be they engineered space architectures, geopolitical networks, or the human immune system. However, despite the ubiquitous desire for resiliency, the concept is surprisingly difficult to define and apply to future planning efforts. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggregate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗
NASA NTRS2022

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

This work introduces and explores the concept of resiliency as it relates to future cislunar space architectures by 1) citing examples of its growing demand across government; 2) describing potential characteristics of resilient systems; 3) introducing a framework for evaluating the linkages between resilient capabilities and visions for future cislunar architectures; and 4) exercising the framework to identify and evaluate resiliency-enabling technical capabilities for cislunar space architectures. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggerate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗
DOE OSTI2021

Big Data For Operation and Maintenance Cost Reduction

The purpose of this research is to develop a first-of-a-kind framework for integrating Big Data capability into the daily activities of our current fleet of nuclear power plants. Big Data is traditionally defined as data sets with high volume, velocity, and heterogeneity, and the existing Big Data analytics capabilities are now widely popular in fields such as finance, weather, e-commerce, healthcare and sports. In the nuclear industry, while the volume and velocity of data may present computational challenges for existing analytics capabilities, data heterogeneity are seen to present the major challenge. This research project mainly focuses on incorporating the wide range of data heterogeneities in nuclear power plants into an integrated Big Data Analytics capability. The primary end-product of this project is a Big Data framework that is capable of dealing with the large volume and heterogeneity of the data found in nuclear power plants to extract timely and valuable information on equipment performance. The framework can generate system insights that are actionable relations between measurable impacts and the corresponding maintenance action plans and enable optimization of plant operation and maintenance based on the extracted information. The developed framework is capable of handling heterogeneous data including both image data and time-series sensor data. Specifically, this developed framework includes the following components. The first component is an overarching maintenance ontology which includes system insights required by maintenance optimization. The maintenance ontology interacts with other components in the developed framework. The second component handles Piping & Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) data. It can be used to extract system components and their relations automatically from the P&IDs. This extracted information is stored in the first component, i.e., maintenance ontology, and is also used as input to the third component, i.e., a tool for generating the fault tree for the corresponding system. The generated fault tree in turn is stored in the ontology for assessing risk that is used as a criterion in maintenance policy optimization. The fourth component is a tool for inferring the parameters in the Markov degradation model for a nuclear system. It uses basic information from the ontology. The fifth component is a tool for assessing the degradation level using sensor measurement data, for example, pressure, flowrate. This tool can be used for determining corrective maintenance actions. The results obtained from components four and five are returned to the ontology. The sixth component of the framework is a tool for optimizing the maintenance policy for a nuclear system of interest. It takes certain basic information from the ontology, e.g., costs of maintenance actions and system failures, as input, and returns the optimal maintenance policy to the ontology. This tool can be used for determining predictive maintenance actions. A set of experiments have also been conducted to verify the algorithms developed in this project for nuclear system degradation monitoring. The experiments are based on four solenoid valves, similar to the ones used in nuclear power plants. The analyses based on the experimental data using two algorithms, i.e., the Randomized Window Decomposition (RWD) algorithm and the particle filtering algorithm, and the results are introduced in the report. The Big Data framework developed in this project can be used as a support tool in daily activities of plant operation and maintenance and will reduce current costs while maintaining or improving safety levels. Overall, the project will not only benefit existing reactors, however it will open new frontiers to realize the long overdue value of Big Data Analytics in the nuclear sphere.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis III and IV Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

To maintain Crew Health and Performance (CHP) during an Artemis mission, the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) and Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element recognize the challenge that many different vehicles, habitats, and operational groups must come together to develop and implement cross program capabilities. To address this challenge, the ExMC team created the prototype 2023 Artemis CHP System Model to analyze how human system requirements are implemented throughout an Artemis mission and help understand the effects of changing an individual vehicle or habitat requirement on a full mission. Since presenting this work at the 2024 HRP Investigators’ Workshop, ExMC has continued this effort, now called the Artemis III and IV CHP System Model, to better support its operational end users within the NASA Human Health and Performance Directorate (HHPD) workforce. In this presentation, we will recapitulate how visualizing requirements and their relationships using a Model-Based Systems Engineering approach (MBSE) serves to improve understanding of an Artemis mission’s CHP capabilities along with discussion on updates made to the model to increase accessibility for users within HHPD so that it may be used in the development of cross program CHP capabilities at NASA.

Crew Health and Performance↗
NASA NTRS2004

High-End Computing Challenges in Aerospace Design and Engineering

High-End Computing (HEC) has had significant impact on aerospace design and engineering and is poised to make even more in the future. In this paper we describe four aerospace design and engineering challenges: Digital Flight, Launch Simulation, Rocket Fuel System and Digital Astronaut. The paper discusses modeling capabilities needed for each challenge and presents projections of future near and far-term HEC computing requirements. NASA's HEC Project Columbia is described and programming strategies presented that are necessary to achieve high real performance.

Bailey, F. Ronald↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Managing Multi-Instrument Data Streams in Secure Environments

The capture and curation of all primary instrument data is a potentially valuable source of added insight into experiments or diagnostics in laboratory experiments. The data can, when properly curated, enable analysis beyond the current practice that uses just a subset of the as-measured data. Complete curated data can also be input for machine learning and other data exploration tools. Conveniently storing and accessing instrument data requires that the instruments are connected to databases and users through a networking infrastructure. This infrastructure needs to accommodate a wide array of instruments which can range from single laboratory mounted probes for environment monitoring to computers managing multiple instruments. These resources may also include mobile devices on which researchers record instrument and experiment state related notes. These varied data sources bring with them the challenges of different communications capabilities and protocols as well as the primary data typically being produced in proprietary formats. These challenges are further compounded when the instruments need to operate in secure environments such as required in national laboratories. We will discuss the SmartLab, an ongoing effort to set up a system for instrument and simulation data curation at NASA Langley Research Center. We will outline the challenges faced in managing the data sources required for ongoing research activities and the solutions that are being considered and implemented to address those challenges.

instrument data management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2011

Parabolic Flight Evaluation of Bacterial Adhesion on Multiple Antimicrobial Surface Treatments

This report describes the development of a test method and the evaluation of the effectiveness of antimicrobial technologies in reduced gravity based on parabolic flight experiments. Microbial growth is a common occurrence on fully immersed wetted surfaces in spacecraft environmental control and life support systems despite the use of chemical and/or physical \disinfection. Many materials and surface treatments with antimicrobial properties are commercially available but none have been vetted for spaceflight applications. Herein a test method is explained that included ground and reduced gravity parabolic flight experiments with a standard microorganism recovered from spacecraft, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, added at a concentration of 1 x 10(exp 5) cells per milliliter (mL) onto challenge material coupon surfaces. Several experimental materials were observed to slightly reduce microbial attachment in reduced gravity flight experiments, but none were capable of eliminating all challenge bacteria. Lunar gravity had an increased antimicrobial effect in 28 out of 36 test coupons compared to microgravity when provided otherwise identical conditions for growth, suggesting trace .amounts of gravity may be required for maximum antimicrobial performance. Bacterial cells exposed to variable gravity had more than twice as ,much intracellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) when compared to control cells exposed only to Earth gravity due to a short duration response to environmental stress. An ATP luminescence assay was the method most amenable to development of an in-flight microbial monitoring assay

Birmele, Michele↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Astrobee: Completed, Current, and Future Research using Free Flying Robots on the International Space Station

After four years on the International Space Station (ISS), the Astrobee Research Facility, has completed over 130 Test Sessions logging over 1000 hours of operations. Managed by the NASA ISS Program OZ office and supported by NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in California, the Astrobee Team maintains three identical free-flying Astrobee robots for research on the ISS. As a technology demonstration platform, the Astrobee Robots are available for Guest Scientists to use for a spectrum of research capabilities. Astrobee, propelled by battery-operated fans, is designed to autonomously operate throughout most of the USOS (US Orbital Segment), with the objective of minimizing astronaut support. Astrobee carries a suite of six cameras, a two degree-of-freedom (DOF) arm with a gripper that can grasp ISS handrails and other objects, and three payload bays that provide power and data for guest science hardware. Astrobee can autonomously execute hours-long flight plans or be teleoperated from the ground or by astronauts. While the Astrobee Team continues to improve mapping and autonomous flight capabilities, one of the main goals of Astrobee Robots is to provide research opportunities for Guest Scientists. The Astrobee Robot Software (ARS) makes extensive use of the open-source Robot Operating System (ROS). The ARS can be used interchangeably with an Astrobee Simulator or as Astrobee’s onboard software. ARS features include autonomous docking and perching, real-time teleoperations from the ground, plan based autonomous tasks, multi Astrobee communication, among other capabilities. Through simulation software and ground testing laboratories, the Astrobee Team is available to support Guest Scientists during development and testing and lead real-time ISS operations. Guest Scientists can participate in this research opportunity following the Guest Science Lifecycle (GSL) shown in Figure 1: Guest Science Lifecycle below. The Astrobee Team and Guest Scientists have complete research including Gecko materials studies, RFID and sound sensing capabilities, student Robotics Programming Challenges, and Free Flyer formation flight investigations. Current science with the Astrobee Robots includes Free Flyer self-toss studies, new docking capabilities, advanced mapping resolution capabilities, and high resolution panoramic imagery. Future Guest scientists and Astrobee Team research will focus on robotics applications for future NASA missions such as Gateway and Artemis and potential experiments involving human-robot interactions. This presentation will focus on four main subjects, 1) completed, current, and future planned research using the Astrobee robots, 2) how Guest Scientist get from conception to the ISS, 3) Astrobee Facility resources available for Guest Science ground testing and real-time ISS operations support, and 4) lessons learned from four years of ISS operations.

Astrobee↗