Results for “KPP”

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Large Eddy Simulations of Upper-Ocean Turbulence Across the Equatorial Pacific Cold Tongue

Turbulence in the equatorial Pacific cold tongue plays multiple roles in the sea-surface temperature budget. However, observations of turbulence are limited to a handful of field experiments lasting from a few days to one month at 0 N , 140 W, and the key turbulent fluxes can only be inferred. Although explicit simulations of turbulence resolve these fluxes, the required large eddy simulations (LES) are costly and thus also limited to a few weeks. A two-fold hypothesis motivates this contribution to the PUMP pre-field modelling experiments in support of TPOS: 1) that there exist useful relationships between the surface wind, wave, and buoyancy forcing, oceanic shear and stratification, and turbulent mixing, but 2) these relationships differ between regions of equatorial dynamics (f~0) and higher latitudes, such that the state space is insufficiently sampled to understand these relationships and represent them in ocean general circulation models (OGCM). To address the lack of observations, we simulated 35 continuous days of upper ocean turbulence using LES during October-November 1985 at sites in two regions (70 days in total) of the cold tongue: 0 N, 140 W and 3 N, 140 W. The model reproduces many features of the observed turbulence at 0,140W, including the “deep-cycle” observed by Gregg et al. (1985) Nature and the turbulent pulses every few hours during the night and in the early morning. Furthermore, the results at 3 N support the hypothesis advanced by Cherian et al. (2021) JPO that strong, but intermittent deep-cycle turbulence is observed to the north of the equator in the presence of strong shear associated with Tropical Instability Waves. Comparisons with the K-profile parameterization (KPP) scheme show that additional tuning of the KPP parameters can reduce differences between the turbulent fluxes produced by KPP and LES at both sites. The results will suggest modifications to OGCMs and already emphasize the need for a more extensive measurements of vertical profiles of shear, stratification and turbulent mixing to reveal the spatio-temporal structure of turbulence and how it relates to forcing, shear and stratification across the equatorial Pacific Cold tongue.

Large Eddy Simulations↗

NASA NTRS2012

Performance Assessment of Baseline Cells for the High Efficiency Space Power Systems Project

The Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) Program High Efficiency Space Power Systems (HESPS) Project, formerly the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Energy Storage Project is tasked with developing advanced lithium-ion cells for future NASA Exploration missions. Under this project, components under development via various in-house and contracted efforts are delivered to Saft America for scale-up and integration into cells. Progress toward meeting project goals will be measured by comparing the performance to these cells with cells of a similar format with Saft s state-of-the-art aerospace chemistry. This report discusses the results of testing performed on the first set of baseline cells delivered by Saft to the NASA Glenn Research Center. This build is a cylindrical "DD" geometry with a 10 Ah nameplate capacity. Testing is being performed to establish baseline cell performance at conditions relevant to ETDD HESPS Battery Key Performance Parameter (KPP) goals including various temperatures, rates, and cycle life conditions. Data obtained from these cells will serve as a performance baseline for future cell builds containing optimized ETDD HESPSdeveloped materials. A test plan for these cells was developed to measure cell performance against the high energy cell KPP goals. The goal for cell-level specific energy of the high energy technology is 180 Wh/kg at a C/10 discharge rate and 0 C. The cells should operate for at least 2000 cycles at 100 percent DOD with 80 percent capacity retention. Baseline DD cells delivered 152 Wh/kg at 20 C. This number decreased to 143.9 Wh/kg with a 0 C discharge. This report provides performance data and summarizes results of the testing performed on the DD cells.

Schneidegger, Brianne T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thermal Management Key Performance Parameter Development and System Analysis for the SUSAN Electrofan Aircraft

A set of key performance parameters (KPPs) for thermal management system (TMS) components was developed for use in system sizing and analysis. These KPPs were defined at three different levels of performance corresponding to different ranges of Technology Readiness Levels. KPP values were determined based on a large dataset that includes analysis and testing data from literature, NASA-funded research, and commercial product datasheets. These KPPs were then used to perform a TMS sizing and analysis of the SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) aircraft. Total TMS mass, power consumption, and drag is quantified at each KPP level, showing decreasing trends as the level of technology improves.

thermal management↗

NASA NTRS1999

Turbulent Diffusivities for Momentum, Heat, Salt and Passive Scalars

A program began ten years ago to build a turbulence model to describe high Reynolds numbers flows. Specifically, the aim was to devise a model that would satisfy two basic conditions: reproduce available turbulence data (laboratory, numerical simulations, etc.) concerning shear driven flows, buoyancy driven flows, 2D turbulence, freely decaying turbulence etc., and yet be manageable so as to be used, for example, in GCM'S. The model was presented in a series of papers that have appeared in Physics of Fluids since 1996. A total of about 80 turbulence statistics were reproduced. The model has no adjustable parameters. The next step was to apply the model to construct the vertical diffusities K for moment K(sub m), temperature K(sub h), salt K(sub s), and passive scalars K(sub c). First, we took K(sub c) = K(sub h) and tested the model using the GFDL ocean model. The results for the profiles of T and S vs. depth are indistinguishable from those derided using the latest model, the KPP model by the NCAR group. Presently, we are running the same GFDL code relaxing the assumptive K(sub c) = K(sub h). Indeed, the turbulence model yelds a salt diffusivity that depends on R(sub i) and R(sub rho) = ((beta)(delta)S/(alpha)(delta)T/(delta)z) in such a way that K(sub s) may be quite different from K(sub h). Salt fingers and double diffusivity laboratory data are reproduced. Results from the ocean model will be available shortly. Finally, we are trying to derive the horizontal diffusivities with the goal of providing a physically acceptable representation of mesoscale eddies. The recently suggested GMW parameterization has improved several O-GCM results and the goal here is to try to derive/justify it from a turbulence model and/or propose improvements/modifications. Theoretical work is in progress.

Canuto, V. M.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Turbulent Diffusivities for Momentum, Heat, Salt and Passive Scalars

A program began ten years ago to build a turbulence model to describe high Reynolds numbers flows. Specifically, the aim was to devise a model that would satisfy two basic conditions: reproduce available turbulence data (laboratory, numerical simulations, etc.) concerning shear driven flows, buoyancy driven flows, 2D turbulence, freely decaying turbulence etc., and yet be manageable so as to be used, for example, in General Circulation Models (GCM'S). The model was presented in a series of papers that have appeared in Physics of Fluids since 1996. A total of about 80 turbulence statistics were reproduced. The model has no adjustable parameters. The next step was to apply the model to construct the vertical diffusities K for moment K(sub m), temperature K(sub h), salt K(sub s). and passive scalars K(sub c). First, we took K(sub s) = K(sub h) and tested the model using the GFDL ocean model. The results for the profiles of T and S vs. depth are indistinguishable from those derived using the latest model, the KPP model by the NCAR group. Presently, we are running the same Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) code relaxing the assumptive K(sub s) = K(sub h). Indeed, the turbulence model yields a salt diffusivity that depends on Ri and R rho (= Beta delta S/delta z/alpha delta T/delta z) in such a way that K(sub s) may be quite different from K(sub h). Salt fingers and double diffusivity laboratory data are reproduced. Results from the ocean model will be available shortly. Finally, we are trying to derive the horizontal diffusivities with the goal of providing a physically acceptable representation of mesoscale eddies. The recently suggested GMW parameterization has improved several O-GCM results and the goal here is to try to derive/justify it from a turbulence model and/or propose improvements/modifications. Theoretical work is in progress.

Canuto, V. M.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Turbulent Diffusivities for Momentum, Heat, Salt and Passive Scalars

A program began ten years ago to build a turbulence model to describe high Reynolds numbers flows. Specifically, the aim was to devise a model that would satisfy two basic conditions: reproduce available turbulence data (laboratory, numerical simulations, etc.) concerning shear driven flows, buoyancy driven flows, 2D turbulence, freely decaying turbulence etc., and yet be manageable so as to be used, for example, in GCM'S. The model was presented in a series of papers that have appeared in Physics of FLuids since 1996. A total of about 80 turbulence statistics were reproduced. The model has no adjustable parameters. The next step was to apply the model to construct the vertical diffusivities K for moment K(sub m), temperature K(sub h), salt K(sub g) and passive scalars K(sub c). First, we took K(sub g) = K(sub h) and tested the model using the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) ocean model. The results for the profiles of T and S vs. depth are indistinguishable from those derided using the latest model, the KPP model by the NCAR group. Presently, we are running the same GFDL code relaxing the assumptive K(sub g) = K(sub h). Indeed, the turbulence model yields a salt diffusivity that depends on Ri and R Rho (= Beta Sigma S/Sigma z/Alpha Sigma T/Sigma z) in such a way that K(sub g) may be quite different from K(sub h). Salt fingers and double diffusivity laboratory data are reproduced. Results from the ocean model will be available shortly. Finally, we are trying to derive the horizontal diffusivities with the goal of providing a physically acceptable representation of mesoscale eddies. The recently suggested GMW parameterization has improved several O-GCM results and the goal here is to try to derive/justify it from a turbulence model and/or propose improvements/modifications. Theoretical work is in progress.

Canuto, Vittorio↗

NASA NTRS1999

Ocean Turbulence I: One-Point Closure Model Momentum and Heat Vertical Diffusivities

Since the early forties, one-point turbulence closure models have been the canonical tools used to describe turbulent flows in many fields. In geophysics, Mellor and Yamada applied such models using the 1980 state-of-the art. Since then, no improvements were introduced to alleviate two major difficulties: 1) closure of the pressure correlations, which affects the correct determination of the critical Richardson number Ri(sub cr) above which turbulent mixing is no longer possible and 2) the need to express the non-local third-order moments (TOM) in terms of lower order moments rather than via the down-gradient approximation as done thus far, since the latter seriously underestimates the TOMs. Since 1) and 2) are still being dealt with adjustable parameters which weaken the credibility of the models, alternative models, not based on turbulence modeling, have been suggested. The aim of this paper is to show that new information, partly derived from the newest 2-point closure model discussed, can be used to solve these shortcomings. The new one-point closure model, which in its simplest form is algebraic and thus simple to implement, is first shown to reproduce a variety of data. Then, it is used in a Ocean-General Circulation Model (O-GCM) where it reproduces well a large variety of ocean data. While phenomenological models are specifically tuned to ocean turbulence, the present model is not. It is first tested against laboratory data on stably stratified flows and then used in an O-GCM. It is more general, more predictive and more resilient, e.g., it can incorporate phenomena like wave-breaking at the surface, salinity diffusivity, non-locality, etc. One important feature that naturally comes out of the new model is that the predicted Richardson critical value Ri(sub cr) is Ri (sub cr approx. = 1) in agreement with both Large Eddy Simulations (LES) and empirical evidence while all previous models predicted Ri (sub cr approx. = 0.2) which led to a considerable underestimate of the extent of turbulent mixing and thus to an incorrect mixed layer depth. The predicted temperature and salinity profiles (vs. depth) are presented and compared with those of the Kolmogorov-Petruvsky-Piskunuv (KPP) model and Levitus data.

Canuto, V. M.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Ocean Turbulence: Two-Point Closure Model Momentum, Heat and Salt Vertical Diffusivities in the Presence of Shear - Paper 3

In papers 1 and 2 we have presented the results of the most updated 1-point closure model for the turbulent vertical diffusivities of momentum, heat and salt, K(sub m,h,s). In this paper, we derive the analytic expressions for K(sub m,h,s) using a new 2-point closure model that has recently been developed and successfully tested against some approx. 80 turbulence statistics for different flows. The new model has no free parameters. The expressions for K(sub m, h. s) are analytical functions of two stability parameters: the Turner number R(sub rho) (salinity gradient/temperature gradient) and the Richardson number R(sub i) (temperature gradient/shear). The turbulent kinetic energy K and its rate of dissipation may be taken local or non-local (K-epsilon model). Contrary to all previous models that to describe turbulent mixing below the mixed layer (ML) have adopted three adjustable "background diffusivities" for momentum. heat and salt, we propose a model that avoids such adjustable diffusivities. We assume that below the ML, K(sub m,h,s) have the same functional dependence on R(sub i) and R(sub rho) derived from the turbulence model. However, in order to compute R(sub i) below the ML, we use data of vertical shear due to wave-breaking measured by Gargett et al. (1981). The procedure frees the model from adjustable background diffusivities and indeed we use the same model throughout the entire vertical extent of the ocean. Using the new K(sub m,h, s), we run an O-GCM and present a variety of results that we compare with Levitus and the KPP model. Since the traditional 1-point (used in papers 1 and 2) and the new 2-point closure models used here represent different modeling philosophies and procedures, testing them in an O-GCM is indispensable. The basic motivation is to show that the new 2-point closure model gives results that are overall superior to the 1-point closure in spite of the fact that the latter rely on several adjustable parameters while the new 2-point closure has none. After the extensive comparisons presented in papers 1 and 2, we conclude that the new model presented here is overall superior for it not only is parameter free but also 2 because is part of a more general turbulence model that has been previously successfully tested on a wide variety of other types of turbulent flows.

Canuto, V. M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Performance Characterization of High Energy Commercial Lithium-ion Cells

The NASA Glenn Research Center Electrochemistry Branch performed characterization of commercial lithium-ion cells to determine the cells' performance against Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Key Performance Parameters (KPP). The goals of the ETDP Energy Storage Project require significant improvements in the specific energy of lithium-ion technology over the state-of-the-art. This work supports the high energy cell development for the Constellation customer Lunar Surface Systems (LSS). In support of these goals, testing was initiated in September 2009 with high energy cylindrical cells obtained from Panasonic and E-One Moli. Both manufacturers indicated the capability of their cells to deliver specific energy of at least 180 Wh/kg or higher. Testing is being performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center to evaluate the performance of these cells under temperature, rate, and cycling conditions relevant to the ETDP goals for high energy cells. The cell-level specific energy goal for high energy technology is 180 Wh/kg at a C/10 rate and 0 C. The threshold value is 165 Wh/kg. The goal is to operate for at least 2000 cycles at 100 percent DOD with greater than 80 percent capacity retention. The Panasonic NCR18650 cells were able to deliver nearly 200 Wh/kg at the aforementioned conditions. The E-One Moli ICR18650J cells also met the specific energy goal by delivering 183 Wh/kg. Though both cells met the goal for specific energy, this testing was only one portion of the testing required to determine the suitability of commercial cells for the ETDP. The cells must also meet goals for cycle life and safety. The results of this characterization are summarized in this report.

Schneidegger, Brianne T.↗

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

Coupled Reactor Multiphysics and Mass Scalability Assessment for Crewed Megawatt-Class NEP System Architectures

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is an in-space propulsion technology capable of enabling opposition and conjunction class crewed Mars missions. NEP subsystems include the reactor for heat generation, a power conversion system (PCS), power management and distribution (PMAD), electric propulsion subsystem (EPS), and a primary heat rejection system. Specific mass, or αe (kg / kWe), is a key performance parameter (KPP) of the propulsion system which is directly scalable with the performance and mass estimates for individual components. To inform technology maturation planning, full system and component level parametric modeling is ongoing to explore the design trade space and illustrate the effect of subsystem design choices on the system KPPs. In this study, scaling of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) reactor designs is assessed through coupled reactor physics and thermal hydraulics analyses. Scaling analyses evaluate the impact of system performance parameters (power level, interface temperatures) on mass for direct gas cooled, pumped liquid metal, and passively cooled heat pipe reactor concepts. Each concept requires specific geometries and working fluids to reach the performance goals of PCS interface conditions (temperature, pressure, flow rate) and system mass. The reactor assembly includes the active core (fuel, moderator, cladding, working fluid), axial and radial neutron reflectors, control drums, structural support / pressure vessel, and external radiation shielding. Each of these components are parametrically sized based on performance parameters for a megawatt-class power cycle. Results of this scaling analysis increase NEP propulsion system modeling fidelity and ultimately aim to support technology down-selection along with related technology development planning. The reactor and shield αe are a function of several PCS design choices, and reactor scaling with these parameters must be considered to enable an informed decision on reactor geometry and working fluid combination.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coupled Reactor Multiphysics and Mass Scalability Assessment for Crewed Megawatt-Class NEP System Architectures

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is an in-space propulsion technology capable of enabling opposition and conjunction class crewed Mars missions. NEP subsystems include the reactor for heat generation, a power conversion system (PCS), power management and distribution, electric propulsion system, and heat rejection system. Specific mass, or α (kg/kWe), is a key performance parameter (KPP) of the propulsion system which is directly scalable with the performance and mass predictions for each individual component. To inform technology maturation planning activities, full system and component level parametric modeling is ongoing to explore the design trade space and illustrate the effect of subsystem design choices on the system KPPs. In this study, scaling of high-assay, low-enriched uranium reactor designs is assessed through coupled reactor physics and thermal hydraulics analyses. Scaling analyses evaluate the impact of system performance parameters (power level, interface temperatures) on mass for direct gas cooled, pumped liquid metal, and passively-cooled heat pipe reactor concepts. Each concept requires specific geometries, fluids, and power conversion interface conditions (temperature, pressure, flow rate) to meet desired performance and mass. The reactor assembly includes the active core (fuel, moderator, cladding, working fluid), axial and radial neutron reflectors, control drums, structural support / pressure vessel, and external radiation shielding. Each of these components are parametrically sized based on performance parameters for a megawatt-class power cycle. Results of this scaling analysis increase NEP propulsion system modeling fidelity and ultimately aim to support concept down-selection along with related technology development planning. The reactor and shield α are a function of several PCS and heat rejection system design choices, and reactor scaling with these parameters must be considered to enable an informed decision on an optimal reactor geometry and working fluid combination.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗

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

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 NTRSDate not supplied

System Engineering & Integration (SE&I) In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Modeling and Analysis (SIMA) Tool for Subsystem Integration into Full-Scale Architectures

In situ resource utilization (ISRU) is the practice of producing mission consumables from local lunar/planetary resources, thereby minimizing system launch mass requirements, mainly through the production of propellant fuel components and life support resources. Modeling full ISRU technology architectures significantly impacts the design and optimization of individual unit processes and facilitates their introduction into service with the Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) logistical planning and operation space. The Mission Analysis and Integration Tool (MAIT) is a modeling framework that connects individual ISRU subsystem models for the purposes of technology down select, scaling & optimization, and end-to-end process planning. The development project team seeks to address specific STMD capability gaps by simulating ISRU systems in MAIT. The goal is to produce system architectures for the Moon and Mars that are linked to Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and environmental requirements. To that end, the framework is adaptive, flexible, and suitable for collaboration among government, private sector, and international entities. Our approach currently provides conventional outputs, such as mass, power, and volume, to analyze whole system trade spaces. However, the framework was designed to validate current breadboard subsystems, simulate future process design capacity, and allow flexibility to any external developer-driven subsystem model that is in a state of evolution.

SE&I↗