SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
CYGNSS: Lessons Learned from NASA Class D Mission and how they selected their parts for the program to include balance between cost, risk, schedule and technology available as well as balancing cost restraints with mission risk profile.
One of NASA's goals within human exploration is to determine how to get humans to Mars safely and to live and work on the Martian surface. To accomplish this goal, several smaller missions act as stepping-stones to the larger end goal. NASA uses these smaller missions to develop new technologies and learn about how to survive outside of Low Earth Orbit for long periods. Additionally, keeping a cadence of these missions allows the team to maintain proficiency in the complex art of bringing spacecraft to fruition. Many of these smaller missions are robotic in nature and have smaller timescales, whereas there are others that involve crew and have longer mission timelines. Given the timelines associated with these various missions, different levels of risk and rigor need to be implemented to be more in line with what is appropriate for the mission. Thus, NASA has four different classifications that range from Class A to Class D based on the mission details. One of these projects is the Resource Prospector (RP) Mission, which is a multi-center and multi-institution collaborative project to search for volatiles in the polar regions of the Moon. The RP mission is classified as a Class D mission and as such, has the opportunity to more tightly manage, and therefore accept, greater levels of risk. The requirements for Class D missions were at the forefront of the design and thus presented unique challenges in vehicle development and systems engineering processes. This paper will discuss the systems engineering process at NASA and how that process is tailored for Class D missions, specifically the RP mission.
The LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) project presented a number of challenges to the preparation for mission operations. A class D mission under NASA s risk tolerance scale, LCROSS was governed by a $79 million cost cap and a 29 month schedule from "authority to proceed" to flight readiness. LCROSS was NASA Ames Research Center s flagship mission in its return to spacecraft flight operations after many years of pursuing other strategic goals. As such, ARC needed to restore and update its mission support infrastructure, and in parallel, the LCROSS project had to newly define operational practices and to select and train a flight team combining experienced operators and staff from other arenas of ARC research. This paper describes the LCROSS flight team development process, which deeply involved team members in spacecraft and ground system design, implementation and test; leveraged collaborations with strategic partners; and conducted extensive testing and rehearsals that scaled in realism and complexity in coordination with ground system and spacecraft development. As a testament to the approach, LCROSS successfully met its full mission objectives, despite many in-flight challenges, with its impact on the lunar south pole on October 9, 2009.
This presentation is for a knowledge exchange between NASA, JAXA, and ESA on System Safety and Mission Assurance Cubesat developments and challenges.
NASA Ames' strategy in using COTS EEE parts for Class D and sub-Class D missions. This Powerpoint presentation discusses the methodology used to enable the use of cheap and widely available COTS EEE parts for spaceflight missions. This methodology has proven to be highly successful over the last dozen years on 30+ nanosat projects.
As NASA develops more planetary protection missions that are Category III and in the Class D/rideshare mission platform, there is an increasing reliance on estimation of prelaunch bioburden to understand needs for burn up and breakup analyses or other methods to meet pre-launch bioburden levels. Current levels estimated for the encapsulated bioburden of semiconductor parts cited by NASA have been based on estimates of semiconductor manufacturing approaches from the 1970s that do not incorporate the evolving cleanliness of semiconductor manufacturing since that time. This investigation will focus on direct sampling of semiconductor parts for encapsulated bioburden values, drawing upon Goddard’s strength in EEE parts, supply chain management, destructive parts analysis and existing local planetary protection lab facilities to prepare and measure encapsulated bioburden at a statistically significant level for standard electronics parts common to known Class D/rideshare platforms.
As NASA develops more planetary protection missions that are Category III and in the Class D/rideshare mission platform, there is an increasing reliance on estimation of prelaunch bioburden to understand needs for burn up and breakup analyses or other methods to meet pre-launch bioburden levels. Current levels estimated for the encapsulated bioburden of semiconductor parts cited by NASA have been based on estimates of semiconductor manufacturing approaches from the 1970s that do not incorporate over fifty years of evolving cleanliness of semiconductor manufacturing processes and facilities. This investigation will focus on direct sampling of semiconductor parts for encapsulated bioburden values, drawing upon Goddard’s strength in EEE parts, supply chain management, destructive parts analysis and existing local planetary protection lab facilities to prepare and measure encapsulated bioburden at a statistically significant level for standard electronics parts common to known Class D/rideshare platforms.
This presentation is a set of charts presented at the 2024 AIAA ASCEND conference. This report is the result of an activity sponsored by Dr. Wanda Peters, Deputy Associate Administrator of Programs, who tasked Florence Tan and Carolyn Mercer with gathering insights from SmallSat/ Class D missions that could be extrapolated to enhance Class A-C missions.
The end-to-end verification of a spacecraft photovoltaic power generation system requires light! A lowcost, portable, and end-to-end photovoltaic-system test appropriate for NASA's new generation of Class D missions is presented. High risk, low-cost, and quick-turn satellites rarely have the resources to execute the traditional approaches from higher-class (A-C) missions. The Class D approach, as demonstrated on the Lunar Atmospheric and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE), utilizes a portable, metalhalide, theatre lamp for an end-to-end photovoltaic system test. While not as precise and comprehensive as the traditional Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulator (LAPSS) test, the LADEE method leverages minimal resources into an ongoing assessment program that can be applied through numerous stages of the mission. The project takes a true Class D approach in assessing the technical value of a costly, highfidelity performance test versus a simpler approach with less programmatic risk. The resources required are a fraction of that for a LAPSS test, and is easy to repeat due to its portability. Further, the test equipment can be handed down to future projects without building an on-site facility. At the vanguard of Class D missions, the LADEE team frequently wrestled with and challenged the status quo. The philosophy of risk avoidance at all cost, typical to Class A-C missions, simply could not be executed. This innovative and simple testing solution is contextualized to NASA Class D programs and a specific risk encountered during development of the LADEE Electrical Power System (EPS). Selection of the appropriate lamp and safety concerns are discussed, with examples of test results. Combined with the vendor's panellevel data and periodic inspection, the method ensures system integrity from Integration and Test (I&T) through launch. Following launch, mission operations tools are utilized to assess system performance based on a scant amount of available data.
The end-to-end verification of a spacecraft photovoltaic power generation system requires light! A low-cost, portable, and end-to-end photovoltaic-system test appropriate for NASAs new generation of Class D missions is presented. High risk, low-cost, and quick-turn satellites rarely have the resources to execute the traditional approaches from higher-class (A-C) missions. The Class D approach, as demonstrated on the Lunar Atmospheric and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE), utilizes a portable, metal-halide, theatre lamp for an end-to-end photovoltaic system test. While not as precise and comprehensive as the traditional Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulator (LAPSS) test, the LADEE method leverages minimal resources into an ongoing assessment program that can be applied through numerous stages of the mission. The project takes a true Class D approach in assessing the technical value of a costly, high-fidelity performance test versus a simpler approach with less programmatic risk. The resources required are a fraction of that for a LAPSS test, and is easy to repeat due to its portability. Further, the test equipment can be handed down to future projects without building an on-site facility.At the vanguard of Class D missions, the LADEE team frequently wrestled with and challenged the status quo. The philosophy of risk avoidance at all cost, typical to Class A-C missions, simply could not be executed. This innovative and simple testing solution is contextualized to NASA Class D programs and a specific risk encountered during development of the LADEE Electrical Power System (EPS). Selection of the appropriate lamp and safety concerns are discussed, with examples of test results. Combined with the vendors panel-level data and periodic inspection, the method ensures system integrity from Integration and Test (IT) through launch. Following launch, mission operations tools are utilized to assess system performance based on a scant amount of available data.
This paper presents recent heavy ion single-event effects test results for commercial off the shelf devices. Data was taken in CY17 for device evaluation for use in a Class D NASA interplanetary mission payload.
Overview presentation for a streamlined Class D mission assurance requirements document developed by an Agency-wide team for NASA Science Mission Directorate
Recent activities to revamp and emphasize the need to streamline processes and activities for Class D missions across the agency have led to various interpretations of Class D, including the lumping of a variety of low-cost projects into Class D. Sometimes terms such as Class D minus are used. In this presentation, mission risk classifications will be traced to official requirements and definitions as a measure to ensure that projects and programs align with the guidance and requirements that are commensurate for their defined risk posture. As part of this, the full suite of risk classifications, formal and informal will be defined, followed by an introduction to the new GPR 8705.4 that is currently under review.GPR 8705.4 lays out guidance for the mission success activities performed at the Classes A-D for NPR 7120.5 projects as well as for projects not under NPR 7120.5. Furthermore, the trends in stepping from Class A into higher risk posture classifications will be discussed. The talk will conclude with a discussion about risk-based safety and mission assuranceat GSFC.
Resource Prospector (RP) is an in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology demonstration mission under study by the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates (HEOMD). This clever mission is currently planned to launch in 2020 and will demonstrate extraction of oxygen, water and other volatiles, as well measure mineralogical content such as silicon and light metals, like aluminum and titanium, from lunar regolith. Expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars will require the maximum possible use of local materials, so-called in-situ resources, and the moon presents a unique destination to conduct robotic investigations that advance ISRU capabilities, as well as providing significant exploration and science value. This mission is equally important; however, for how it executes as a risk-tolerant, cost-effective mission. RP follows on the path-finding approaches of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission. The LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of water-ice on the moon, but also established a new lightweight-approach to project and mission execution which was considerably cheaper and faster than traditional NASA missions. RP has been designated as a Class D mission, just as LCROSS. This mission classification is the most risk-tolerant class of mission within the NASA risk framework and as such, is given more latitude to accept higher-levels of residual risk. The intention is that by saving monies normally spent attempting to assure a single missions success, more missions can be funded. A well-designed portfolio can accept occasional mission failure, as it still gets more done for the same investment of resources. This classification enables tailoring the NASA Policy Requirements (NPRs) to lighter-weight approaches to mission management and execution. RP is also studying both international and commercial partnerships as a means to maximize return on the investment. International partnerships provide both capabilities synergies and cost-sharing opportunities, while the evolving new space commercial options are revealing new approaches to acquiring cost-effective services, including the benefits of bundling services. Even the world of launch vehicles is changing, offering much less expensive access to space, especially if NASA is able to be flexible in how it approaches mission assurance. Finally, leveraging investments being made elsewhere within a program portfolio, can enable cost-savings by enabling two applications with one investment. RP will be the next pathfinder mission to both enable exploration capabilities for future missions, and continue to evolve cost-effective approaches for NASA.
This report accompanies is a set of charts that will be presented at the 2024 LEARN Forum. This report is the result of an activity sponsored by Dr. Wanda Peters, Deputy Associate Administrator of Programs, who tasked Florence Tan and Carolyn Mercer with gathering insights from SmallSat/ Class D missions that could be extrapolated to enhance Class A-C missions.
This presentation provides an overview of recent activities at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in the development and performance test characterization of electric propulsion subsystems intended for small satellite (SmallSat) and cubesat missions. The status and recent progress of several on-going development activities related to smallsat/cubesat missions at GRC will be discussed. These projects and activities include Sub-Kilowatt Electric Propulsion (SKEP), iodine compatibility testing of Hall thruster components, performance testing of a cold gas propulsion system for BioSentinel, and performance testing of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology electrospray propulsion units. The functions and capabilities of GRC's Electric Propulsion Systems Branch will be covered. These capabilities are available to provide propulsion subsystem manufacturers independent, third-party assessments of their technologies for use on future NASA missions. A plan to generate standards for the development of smallsat/cubesat propulsion systems for Class D missions has been initiated and will be outlined in this presentation.
NASA is well acquainted with and skilled in conducting Risk Class A Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA). Class A missions are characterized as having highly specific performance with an ultra-low risk tolerance for risk and mission failure. But space is rapidly changing, and the space enterprise is challenged to pursue faster more agile mission developments with fewer resources and directed schedules. To meet this demand mission development teams face accepting more risk and trading performance within strict cost and schedule constraints. In responding to this challenge, The Aerospace Corporation has evolved the Adaptive Mission Assurance (AMA) approach. The benefit of an “adaptive” approach is most realized for smaller Research and Development (R&D), or Science and Technology (S&T) demonstration missions constrained by significantly smaller budgets and directed schedules. The challenge for these “risk tolerant, constraints-driven” missions is how to identify the most valuable mission assurance tasks that will fit within strict budgetary and schedule constraints for “gracefully” accepting risk that still achieves an agreeable expectation of mission success. AMA can respond to this challenge with little to no impact to team staffing or existing workload. This conceptual guide introduces AMA as a potential implementation for NASA Risk Class D and Sub-Class D missions.