Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “2021 conference”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2021

AIAA Ascend 2021 Conference On Demand Manufacturing of Electronics Panel Abstract

1. Session Proposal o Session Title NASA’s In Space Manufacturing and the On Demand Manufacturing of Electronics o Session Topic Primary -- Space Logistics, Autonomy, and Robotics; Secondary – Transformative Research and Technologies o Session Format: Panel Discussion. o Requested Session Duration: 60 minutes o Short Session Description: The goal of NASA’s On Demand Manufacturing of Electronics project is to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of a low-gravity, on-demand manufacturing system for flexible hybrid electronic devices on the International Space Station. This panel will feature several key collaborators and team members from the commercial sector, academia, and internal to NASA, each of which are contributing an unique and vital role to the design and implementation of this new technology system. o Extended Session Description (Please describe in detail the activity proposed, including how you intend to use the requested session duration. This session description will be provided to the reviewers for consideration and will not be displayed in the online agenda.): The session will be moderated by Curtis Hill, the Project Lead for the On Demand Manufacturing of Electronics (ODME), and he will start by giving a brief introduction to the ODME project which is working to produce a demo system for the manufacturing of electronic devices on the International Space Station. Panelists consisting of collaborators and team members to the ODME project will then give a brief (~5 min) introduction highlighting their contributions to the project, followed by time for Q&A from the audience. The panel will consist of: 1. Kenneth Church, nScrypt. nScrypt is a leader in multi-material printing with a modular system that incorporates a direct write thick film print head, a polymer fused filament fabrication print head, a laser sintering attachment, a drill head attachment for milling, and a pick and place. The system can print a layer and scan for accuracy of prints. The combination of multiple print heads and scanning allows for the on-demand production of intricate electronic components. 2. Andy Kurk, TechShot, Inc. Techshot, Inc. has collaborated extensively with NASA on the in space manufacturing of both printed electronics and fused metal materials. They are currently working to develop and integrate a test system for printed electronics, and a flight demonstration on the International Space Station is anticipated in 2024. 3. Ed Hendricks, NextFlex. NextFlex has the goal of advancing the manufacture of flexible hybrid electronics in the U.S. They are working with ODME on the development of AstroSense, an additively manufactured, wireless, flexible, and wearable health sensor. 4. Dr. Pradeep Lall, Auburn University. Professor Lall is the MacFarlane Endowed Distinguished Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering with a Courtesy Joint Appointment in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and a Courtesy Joint Appointment in the Department of Finance. He is collaborating with NASA’s ODME project to develop multilayer printable devices and to develop techniques to test the quality of a printed electronic device. 5. Dr. Wei Gao, California Institute of Technology. Professor Gao is an Assistant Professor of Medical Engineering. His group is developing fully printed, flexible, and wearable biosensors for crew health monitoring in collaboration with NASA’s ODME project. In addition, they are working on using sweat to power biofuel cells for wearable, self-powered electronic devices. 6. Beth Paquette, NASA Goddard. The ODME branch at NASA Goddard is spearheading a sounding rocket flight demo to prove the capability of a printed electronic device with multiple sensors. In addition, they focus on thin film and flexible energy storage evaluations. o Session Goal(s)/Outcome(s): Please list the learning objectives and/or tangible outcomes (technical paper or other publication). The goal of this session is to highlight the internal and collaborative efforts of NASA’s On Demand Manufacturing of Electronics project to develop a system for printing electronics that will be tested on the International Space Station in 2024. In addition, the session with facilitate discussion with the community on the state of the art of printable electronics, current challenges, and new avenues for collaboration.

Jennifer McInnis Jones↗
NASA NTRS2022

Orbital Debris Quarterly News, March 2022

Inside - ORDEM 3.2Release - DAS 3.2 Release - International Space Station Maneuvers Twice to Avoid Fragmentation Debris - Two Minor Breakup Events in Fourth Quarter of 2021 - Conference and Workshop Reports8UpcomingMeetings - Space Missions and Satellite Box Score

Heather Cowardin↗
NASA NTRS2022

Research Report: Progress on Building a File Observatory for Secure Parser Development

Parsing untrusted data is notoriously challenging.Failure to handle maliciously crafted data correctly can (anddoes) lead to a wide range of vulnerabilities. The Languagetheoretic security (LangSec) philosophy seeks to obviate the needfor developers to apply ad hoc solutions by, instead, offeringformally correct and verifiable input handling throughout thesoftware development lifecycle. One of the key components indeveloping secure parsers is a broad coverage corpus that enablesdevelopers to understand the problem space for a given formatand to use, potentially, as seeds for fuzzing and other automatedtesting. In this paper, we offer an update on work reportedat the LangSec 2021 conference on the development of a fileobservatory to gather and enable analysis on a diverse collectionof files at scale. The initial focus of the observatory is on PortableDocument Format (PDF) files and file formats typically embeddedin PDFs. In this paper, we report on refactoring the ingestprocess, applying new analytic methods, and improving the User Interface.

Stonebraker, Ryan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flow Characterization of the NASA Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, Test Section 2: Computational Results

This is an abstract for an invited paper at the AIAA Aviation Conference, June 2021. The work described here is part of an effort of coordinated experiments in the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) facility at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) and matching CFD simulations. The primary goal of the work is to assess the productivity and true predictive accuracy of CFD, absent any guidance from experiment, in the high supersonic speed range as compared to experiments performed at the NASA LaRC’s UPWT facility. This report concerns CFD simulation of the primary flow-path in the empty wind tunnel, including the settling chamber, nozzle, test section, and some of the tunnel downstream of the test section. The Mach number in the test section ranges from M~2.4 to M~4.6, and the required area ratio variation is achieved by translation of a nozzle block which constricts the area of a loosely S-shaped throat. Flow past protuberances in the settling chamber and into this S-bend throat are predicted by CFD to generate streamwise vorticity that may, or may not, persist through the throat and into the test section as coherent vortices. Some flow conditions are notably unsteady at frequencies well below those of turbulence, due to unsteady separated flow ahead of the nozzle block. The bulk flow moves at velocities ranging from 'walking speed' in the settling chamber to M~4.6 in the test section. Heat transfer to the settling chamber walls and buoyancy are significant at high Mach number. Subtle variations in surface curvature in the nozzle generate Mach waves that propagate into the test section. CFD of the empty tunnel serves two purposes. Firstly, the full-tunnel simulations are used to provide upstream boundary conditions for CFD of vehicle aerodynamics which are generally performed in a domain confined to the wind tunnel test section; these companion studies are addressed in other papers. Secondly, it is a challenging test for CFD to resolve all of the empty tunnel flow phenomena relevant to flow in the test section. It requires a more complete definition of geometry than was originally anticipated. In addition, it requires good spatial and temporal accuracy, and turbulence modeling that performs well on specific phenomena such as corner flows. The boundary conditions and solution algorithms must perform well from incompressible to almost hypersonic speeds. The final state of the pre-test CFD was a product of an iterative self-improvement process. The initial simulations of the empty tunnel were deficient in many respects, but hints to those deficiencies were recognized in the solutions, and remedies were implemented. Possible further improvements will be studied in the post-test phase when comparisons with experimental data are possible. The CFD was performed by five separate collaborative teams using four different flow solvers: FUN3D, Overflow, Star-CCM+ and USM3D. The level of effort of these teams varied significantly, but each made important contributions to the goals of the work. A concerted effort to use uncertainty quantification methods (UQ) in CFD is also a goal of this work. To this end, variations in CFD results due to grid refinement, turbulence modeling, and boundary conditions have been characterized. Code-to-code variation is another means of assessing CFD uncertainty. All CFD solvers predict similarity among the primary flow features; these include the variation of Mach number due to changes in Reynolds number, and the bulk flow angularity due to tunnel-wall curvature. All CFD solvers also predict similar trends in secondary flows, such as the downwash in the side-wall boundary layers. Three of the high-spatial resolution simulations give similar predictions of a complex secondary flow phenomena, streamwise vortices generated in the S-bend throat that persist into the side-wall boundary layers of the test section. Two of the highest-resolution simulations, run with the same turbulence model in different CFD solvers, gave encouragingly similar predictions of a complex tertiary flow phenomenon, small transient "sprites" of upwash flows, resulting from vortices that presumably originate in the separated flow near the leading edge of the nozzle block. While the CFD was done in a "blind pre-test" mode, requests from the experimental team for CFD results pertaining to unsteadiness and total temperature variations in the test section resulted in CFD runs that included a cooled wall in settling chamber. This then led to a change in the standard practice for running the Overflow results, which would not have occurred without this "release" of this experimental information. CFD was also used to guide some measurements. The paper will focus on establishing the consensus among CFD results and understanding differences among those results. Initial findings from the efforts to characterize CFD uncertainty have been done and will be included in the paper.

Robert Edward Childs↗
NASA NTRS2022

Predicting the Penetration of a Shielded TPS Tile

All spacecraft are subject to the possibility of high-speed particle impacts during their mission life. In low earth orbit, those impacts could be the result of collisions with pieces of orbital debris or with meteorites. Beyond LEO, and especially beyond GEO, those impacts will likely be caused by meteorites. Such high-speed impacts on spacecraft surfaces create debris clouds that travel towards and eventually impact other downstream spacecraft components. In addition to the impulsive load that such debris clouds would impart to the spacecraft elements with which they subsequently collide, the largest fragment in these debris clouds poses a significant threat on its own to those spacecraft elements. In order to be able to assess the severity of the threat posed by such a fragment, it is important to be able to predict the extent of damage sustained by the impacted spacecraft element. In this paper, we present a new process for determining the penetration depth in a shielded TPS tile system. The requirements for the process were that it be applicable across a full spectrum of impact low velocities (i.e. from ~ 7 km/s to above 50 km/s), that it be applicable over a wide range of projectile materials densities (i.e. ranging from water to steel, for example), and that it be applicable over a wide range of trajectory obliquities (i.e. not just normal impacts). Furthermore, the process developed should be sufficiently flexible so that it can be used for shield design parameter and / or system configuration trade studies (i.e. be written in terms of as many shield and TPS tile system parameters as possible). Following the initial impact of the projectile on the outer wall of the dual-wall shield, a debris cloud (i.e. the primary debris cloud) is created that travels towards and impacts the inner wall of the shield. Within this debris cloud is a combination of solid, liquid, and vaporized material, depending on the impact velocity and the impedance mismatch of the projectile and outer wall materials. The impact of this debris cloud on the inner wall creates another debris cloud (i.e. the secondary debris cloud) that then travels towards and impacts the TPS tile. Within the particulate distribution of the material in each of these debris clouds is a so-called largest fragment. The process used to calculate the penetration depth in a shielded TPS tile system developed herein consists of the following three steps: 1. Does the initial projectile perforate the outer wall of the shield? If NO, the TPS tile remains undamaged. If YES, calculate the size and speed of the largest fragment exiting the outer wall of the shield and traveling towards the shield’s inner wall. 2. Does the largest fragment in the debris cloud exiting the outer wall of the shield perforate the inner wall of the shield? If NO, the TPS tile again remains undamaged. If YES, calculate the size and speed of the largest fragment exiting the rear of the shield inner wall. 3. Calculate the penetration depth of the largest fragment in the debris cloud exiting the inner wall into the TPS. Perforation of the inner and outer shield walls is predicted using the Cour-Palais penetration depth equation and an associated failure criterion [1]. The largest debris cloud fragment diameters and associated velocities are calculated using regression equations developed from a mix of hydrocode and experimental diameter and velocity information [2]. Finally, TPS penetration depths are calculated using an empirical penetration depth predictor equation based on high-speed impact test data and are calibrated using a limited number of hydrocode penetration depth predictions for water, nylon, aluminum, Dunite, and steel projectiles The predictions of the penetration depth calculation process are compared against the predictions of more than 60 SPHC hydrocode runs. These comparisons show that the process used to calculate TPS tile penetration depths usually yields values that are within 1 mm of the predictions of hydrocode simulations. If a maximum allowable TPS penetration depth is known, the process developed herein can now be used to develop a failure limit equation that would predict whether or not an impacting particle would penetrate deeply enough into the TPS to result in a “failed” or “not failed” end state. References [1] E.L. Christiansen, “Design and performance equations for advanced meteoroid and debris shields”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 145-156. [2] W.P. Schonberg, “Predicting the size of the largest particle fragment in a debris cloud created by an orbital debris impact and its associated velocity”, 2021 Applied Space Environments Conference, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, November, 2021.

Meteroid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Use of three-cornered hat error estimates in MERRA-2 to guide an improved reanalysis-Part 1

The three-cornered hat (3CH) method estimates the uncertainties of three different co-located model or observational data sets (Anthes and Rieckh, 2018; Sjoberg et al., 2021). Rieckh et al. (2021) used the 3CH method to compare the random error statistics of different global forecast and reanalysis models, as well as radio occultation (RO) and radiosonde observations. That study showed that the MERRA-2 reanalysis, while having smaller errors in the stratosphere than its predecessor MERRA, had larger errors in the troposphere than many of the other data sets analyzed. The MERRA-2 errors were particularly large in the tropics. In a collaborative effort between UCAR’s COSMIC (Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Meteorology) program and NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), we carried out further 3CH error diagnostics to help isolate the causes of these larger errors and help guide the development of an improved reanalysis. This presentation summarizes random error statistics associated with MERRA-2, ECMWF’s ERA5 reanalysis, and COSMIC-2 (C2) RO observations. We compute 3CH error variance estimates of refractivity, as well as temperature and specific humidity using UCAR’s COSMIC Data Analysis and Archive Center (CDAAC) improved 1D-variational (1D-Var) retrieval (wetPf2) over 15 latitude bands from 45S to 45N. The 1D-Var retrievals of specific humidity and temperature for C2 use NCEP’s Global Forecast System (GFS) as the background. Anthes et al. (2021) showed that it gives accurate estimates of temperature and specific humidity in the tropics and subtropics, even in the challenging environment of intense Hurricane Dorian (2019). This presentation confirms the previous results that MERRA-2 has significantly larger errors in the tropics and subtropics than either C2 or ERA5. Its errors are larger between 30S and 30N compared to 30-45 N-S latitudes, and are also larger over land compared to oceans. Most of the MERRA-2 refractivity errors come from specific humidity, except over land below 3 km where temperature errors are large. These results suggest that moist convection and atmospheric boundary layer physics in MERRA-2 may be responsible for a significant part of the higher uncertainties. These results are being used to guide GMAO in developing an improved next-generation reanalysis, as shown in a companion presentation submitted to this conference (El Akkraoui et al., 2021), which extends this study and describes improvements to MERRA-2 leading to the next GMAO reanalysis.

Jeremiah Sjoberg↗
NASA NTRS2023

The NASA Astrobiology Program’s Professional Advancement Workshop Series: Next Steps

Introduction: In the modern-day competitive job search, it is not enough for a candidate to have an excellent academic resume. Candidates must also present themselves well in various styles of interviews, have managerial skills, and be capable of engaging in complex interpersonal relationships and team building. The NASA Astrobiology Program’s Professional Advancement Workshop Series (PAWS) addresses the need for professional skills development that is not traditionally taught in graduate programs. PAWS is designed to supplement academic teachings by providing a space where early career scientists can learn new skills to help them explore, interview for, and be hired in the jobs and careers they want. This is especially true for jobs that are outside of the traditional academic “pipeline” (the path of student to postdoc to tenure-track professor). PAWS embraces the braided river model of career development [1], which emphasizes flexibility as a scientist’s needs change throughout their life. PAWS also presents an opportunity for other early career scientists to meet and network with each other outside of conferences and other formal events. This is especially important as the world emerges from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, PAWS creates an informative space full of resources available to everyone, which lowers institutional barriers regarding knowledge of opportunities and potentially provides mentorship to those in need. Both items are identified as supportive of a more diverse and inclusive future workforce [2–4]. PAWS began in August 2021 and was originally intended to last until the Astrobiology Science Conference in May 2022. The NASA Astrobiology Program initially sponsored PAWS, allowing the PAWS Leadership to bring in expert speakers from outside of NASA. These external speakers exposed the event attendees to new techniques and perspectives. PAWS has been able to continue beyond May 2022 because of many people volunteering their time for panels and a good balance between panels and expert-led workshops. Here, we share how PAWS works, what the results have been so far, and the future plans for PAWS.

Worshop↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

On the Making of IXPE

The joint NASA and ASI mission, a Small NASA Explorer, named the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) was launched aboard a Falcon 9 and successfully put into an equatorial low-earth orbit on December 9, 2021. The mission has been an outstanding success, programmatically and scientifically as this conference demonstrates. We present a brief, but detailed overview of what IXPE is and how it works. We also review the background of the development of IXPE and explain how a fifty-year goal of wanting to add imaging X-ray polarimetry to our arsenal of tools was finally accomplished.

Martin C. Weisskopf↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Lab Rapid Analytical Detection of Lunar Volatiles By Universal Gas Analyzer With Comparison to GC-MS System

Introduction: The curation of permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) [1] on the lunar surface is centered around studies based upon the observed volatiles from the LCROSS mission [2]. The rapid detection of important volatile gases and vapors present in planetary bodies and Astromaterials by a standalone analytical device is an area of intense research interest in our group and Planetary Exploration & Astromaterials Research Laboratory (PEARL) facility and this work is relevant to the future preparation of viable lunar simulants for testing curation efforts down the road. The groundbreaking results obtained from the LCROSS Mission [2] open the requirements for the direct detection of volatiles present in regolith materials collected from the lunar surface. The mass spectrometry of volatile chemicals is a general technique that utilizes a set of instruments that creates charged ions from a gaseous chemical species and measures the intensities vs. mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) [3]. In this context, we discuss in-lab experimental results and procedures for rapid qualitative analysis of main LCROSS volatiles (water, H2S, NH3, CO2, and CH3OH) by a Universal Gas Analyzer (UGA) instrument. Additionally, the instrument performance was evaluated by measuring the isotopic abundance ratio of atmospheric Ar-40 to Ar-36 present in room air since, argon is a relevant gas in planetary studies as it can provide an insight and reference point to isotope studies [4]. Additional, cross comparisons were attempted and made between the two instruments to develop a robust analytical technique by comparing mass spectral data for H2S headspace samples with a Trace-1310/ ISQ 7000 (ThermoFisher Scientific.) GC-MS system. Background: The benchtop UGA System is equipped with an SRS UGA 300 quadrupole mass spectrometer designed and built by Stanford Research Systems [5]. This system can be configured for several types of gaseous chemical analysis. The inlet line continuously samples gases at low flow rates (several milliliters per minute) through a capillary limiting the intake pressure making the instrument ideal for online analysis of select gases and/or room atmosphere. Moreover, in our current UGA system, a change in composition at the inlet can be detected in about 200 milliseconds and a complete spectrum is acquired (for a range of 1-100 amu) in under 45 sec with masses measured at rates up to 25 msec per point [5]. This system provides a quick upstream analytical data that we can then compare to results obtained by our GC-MS system. Sample Preparation: Small volume (2-4 mL) of analyte sample was taken in a 10 mL glass vial and sealed with a crimped cap and purged with pure Ar or N2 gas to displace air from the top. The headspace sample was scanned by the UGA instrument at analog, histogram, and pressure vs. time modes. The isotopic abundance ratio for 40Ar-to-36Ar was estimated by measuring partial pressure vs. time scans and setting the mass at 40 and 36 respectively. Results and Discussions: In this work, we have investigated the applicability of the UGA system by qualitative analysis of a series of LCROSS volatiles measured individually. Fig. 1 demonstrates a set of vertically offset spectra for the partial pressures measured as a function of mass-to-charge (m/z) ratios. The average acquisition time for each spectrum was less than a minute suggesting that the UGA system is ideal for quick analysis of geochemical volatiles. For the cross-comparison, we analyzed an H2S headspace sample by a Trace-1310/ISQ-7000 system and compared mass spectral data with previously measured UGA histogram scan data (Fig. 2). In both cases, major peak positions are the same, however, the intensities of fragment ions ([1H132S]+ and [32S]+) are higher for UGA suggesting that the fragment ionization process is stronger in UGA compared to that of GC-MS. To investigate how the integrated area under each chromatogram varies with the headspace sample volume, a set of five H2S headspace samples with increasing volumes was analyzed by the GC-MS system (Fig. 3, inset). A small volume (e.g., 200 to 1000 µL) of H2S/H2O vapor was withdrawn from a 20 mL stock sample vial containing ~5 mL of 0.4% H2S in water by a gas-tight syringe and added to another 20 mL vial filled with argon and analyzed by the GC-MS system. Finally, the UGA detector sensitivity was evaluated by calculating the atmospheric 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratio in room air by running a partial pressure vs. time scan with setting the atomic mass at 40, and 36. Fig. 4(a) shows a ~25 min duration “P vs. time” scan for 40Ar (plot for 36Ar is not shown). The partial pressure values (~100 points) were corrected by subtracting the corresponding background pressure value for 37Ar and utilized to calculate 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratios as shown by Fig. 4b. The average isotopic abundance ratio is ~306 with a 2*STDEV ~13. This abundance ratio is significantly close to the previously reported value of 298.56 [6] and the ratio obtained by our GC-MS system (303 for a UHP grade Ar sample). Conclusions: Our study strongly evidenced that the benchtop UGA system is a valuable analytical tool for the detection of major LCROSS volatiles. The rapid scanning capability, the inexpensiveness of the whole system, and impressive detection sensitivity prove its worthiness as an essential device for advanced geochemical applications. Moreover, cross comparisons with the GC-MS provide important bridges into advanced curatorial efforts into the future. References: [1] Bickel, V.T., et al. (2021) Nat Commun 12, 5607. [2] Colaprete, A., et al. (2010) Science, 330, 463-468. [3] Glavin, D. P. et al. (2012) 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1-11. [4] Willett, C. D., et al. (2022) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 329, 119-134. [5] Operation Manual and Programming Reference. (2018) Universal gas Analyzers, Stanford Research Systems. [6] Lee, J. Y., et al. (2006) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 4507–4512. Notes: (4 figures are attached with text as shown by the attached file)

Curation↗
NASA NTRS2024

Mark I Silicon Carbide Integrated Circuit Test Oven Assembly and Programming Guide

This report provides a parts list, with assembly and programming instructions for building firstgeneration (Mark I) compact test ovens; this oven design is customized for prolonged functional electrical testing of prototype silicon carbide (SiC) devices at temperatures up to 500 °C (932 °F). The general approach of using multiple compact ovens to perform long-term, high-temperature electronics testing efficiently is described in a conference paper (Izadnegahdar, Alain, et al.: Alternative Setup for LongDuration Low-Duty-Cycle 600 °C Ambient Testing of SiC Integrated Circuits. International Microelectronics Assembly and Packaging Society (iMAPS) HiTECH 2021 Technology Crossover Extravaganza, 2021), available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210011676. The new Mark I oven design described here offers several significant improvements over the compact oven described in that paper. For example, it is constructed from commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and requires minimal assembly. Much of the work involves drilling holes in the two aluminum project boxes, which contain the control electronics and the oven itself. The cost of components is less than $200 (USD) per oven, which makes constructing multiple ovens affordable. In addition, the two-box design separates the high-temperature heater from the electronics, which keeps the electronics cool, prolonging the lifetime of these components.

high temperature↗
NASA NTRS2025

State-of-the-Art Small Spacecraft Technology

The objective of this report is to assess and provide an overview of the state of the art in small spacecraft technologies for use by mission designers, project managers, technologists, and students, connecting current small spacecraft missions to available technologies. This report focuses on the spacecraft system in its entirety, provides current best practices for integration and key considerations for the reader where possible, and presents devices from publicly available sources for each specific spacecraft subsystem. This report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it is not an original source. In addition, this report only considers literature in the public domain. Information presented in this report is limited to SmallSat technology that is publicly available as of September 30, 2024. It does not include information on instrumentation, science payloads, or advances or developments that have not been publicly disclosed. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer data sheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. We encourage the SmallSat community to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones in publicly available conference papers, press releases, or company websites so they can be reflected in future editions of this report. This report is funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). It was first commissioned by the Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program within NASA’s STMD in mid2012 in response to the rapid growth in interest in using small spacecraft for low-Earth orbit, lowcost missions. The report was subsequently updated in 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 to capture SmallSat technology growth and maturation. In addition to reporting currently available state-of-the-art technologies that have achieved Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 or above, a prognosis is provided describing technologies as "on the horizon" if they are being considered for future application.

Sasha V Weston↗
NASA NTRS2022

Exploring the Clouds of Venus: Science Driven Aerobot Missions to Our Sister Planet

Venus is essential to our understanding of the evolution and habitability of Earth-size planets throughout the galaxy. The selection of the VERITAS, EnVision, and DAVINCI missions by NASA and ESA in June 2021 is an important step in advancing the science. However, addressing many of the most challenging questions will require in situ platforms that can operate in the Venus environment for extended periods in order to capture the full complexity of our sister planet. Aerobots are aerial vehicles that exploit buoyancy to achieve long-duration operation in the Venus cloud layer where environmental conditions are comparatively benign. Buoyancy control, explained in more detail in a companion paper at this conference, allows aerobots to change altitude with little energy expenditure enabling new scientific measurement opportunities. These include atmospheric chemistry, dynamics, geophysical measurements of the crust and interior and geological investigations enabled by high resolution surface imaging. One aspect to our approach to defining missions that fit within the resource constraints of competitive missions is keeping the scale small. Today’s science-driven appetite for sophisticated measurements and large volumes of data is driving size upwards but advances in technology can enable aerobots that can be delivered to Venus at manageable costs. The other aspect is supporting the aerobot at Venus with orbiters providing data relay, localization and synergistic science. The recently selected orbiters, equipped with low-cost proximity relay systems routinely used at Mars may obviate the need for dedicated orbiters thereby enabling Discovery mission candidates. Four aerobot mission concepts have been defined which fit comfortably within the current New Frontiers (NF) cost cap ($900M in $FY22). One of these concepts would also be a candidate for a Discovery mission if that cost cap ($500M in $FY19) were raised. Raising the NF cost cap would enable more capable aerobot missions combining both altitude control with synergistic orbital observations. Investigations of surface geology at high resolution with subcloud NIR nightside imaging and dropsondes on the dayside of Venus could also benefit from collaborations with foreign contributions.

"O'Rourke, Joseph"↗
NASA NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Venus Global Reference Atmospheric Model (Venus-GRAM) Upgrades

Introduction: The Venus Global Reference Atmospheric Model (Venus-GRAM) is one of the most widely used engineering models of Venus’ atmosphere. The Venus-GRAM upgrades are being developed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). This presentation will provide details regarding the upgrades that have been made to Venus-GRAM and the ongoing objectives, tasks, and milestones related to the GRAM upgrades funded by the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD). Venus-GRAM: Venus-GRAM is an engineering-oriented atmospheric model that estimates mean values and statistical variations of the atmospheric properties of Venus. Venus-GRAM provides mean values and variability for any point in the atmosphere as well as seasonal, geographic, and altitude variations. Venus-GRAM outputs include atmospheric density, temperature, pressure, winds, and chemical composition along a user-defined path. It is extensively used by the engineering community because of its ability to create realistic dispersions. GRAMs have been integrated into high fidelity flight dynamic simulations of launch, entry, descent and landing (EDL), aerobraking and aerocapture. GRAMs are currently available for Earth, Mars, Venus, Neptune, Titan, and Uranus. The lower atmosphere model in Venus-GRAM (up to 250 km) is based on the Venus International Reference Atmosphere (VIRA) [1]. The Venus-GRAM thermosphere (250 to 1000 km) is based on a MSFC-developed model [2] which assumes an isothermal temperature profile initialized using VIRA conditions at 250 km [3]. The VIRA version included in Venus-GRAM includes Pioneer Venus Orbiter and Probe data as well as Venera probe data, but it does not include a solid planet model or a high-resolution gravity model [4]. Venus-GRAM Upgrade Status: Code Modernization. Venus-GRAM has been rearchitected from Fortran to a common object-oriented C++ framework called the GRAM Suite. This new architecture creates a common GRAM library of data models and utilities. The first C++ release of the rearchitected Venus-GRAM is a straight conversion from the latest Fortran version. Model Upgrades. The focus of the model upgrade task is to improve the atmosphere models in the existing GRAMs and to establish a foundation for developing GRAMs for additional destinations. The GRAM ephemeris has been upgraded to the NASA Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) SPICE toolkit (version N0066). The calculation of the speed of sound has also been improved in the GRAMs. In FY20, the GRAM project established contracts to improve the model data within Venus-GRAM. Hampton University is developing an empirical global model for Venus. The University of Wisconsin is reanalyzing the Venus Express radio occultation observations and analyzing the Akatsuki thermal imaging data. Upgraded Venus-GRAM Release. GRAM Suite Version 1.3 will be released in September 2021 and will contain the rearchitected Venus-GRAM, including the common GRAM framework and planet–specific code. A User Guide and Programmer’s Manual are released with all GRAMs. Conclusions: GRAMs are frequently used toolsets and vital in assessing effects of atmospheres on interplanetary spacecraft during the program life cycle process. Releases of the GRAM Suite, upgrades of the existing planetary GRAMs, and development of new planetary GRAMs are ongoing. Venus-GRAM atmosphere model upgrades will be included in the next phase of GRAM tasks. References: [1] Kliore, A. J. et al. (1985) ASR, 5, 11, 1-304. [2] Justh, H. L. et al. (2006) AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference & Exhibit, Abstract AIAA-2006-6394. [3] Guide to Reference and Standard Atmosphere Models, BSR/AIAA G-003-2010. [4] Limaye, S. S. (2012), LPSC VEXAG Townhall Meeting. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the NASA SMD.

atmospheric models↗