Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NASA Hardware and Spacecraft Development”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Revisiting Building-Block Approaches for Structures

The building-block approach is a method for building confidence in designs, working from lower-level components to more complex assemblies, using knowledge gained at each step to inform higher fidelity representations. The goals of this paper are to revisit the basic techniques of the building-block approach as it applies to structural design and analysis and illustrate some best practices that should be considered when developing structural analysis models. The paper demonstrates the process of leveraging existing information to build confidence in the design/development of analysis models, followed by examples of how the building-block approach for analysis was used in NASA hardware and spacecraft development efforts. The paper will also discuss virtual testing and hybrid simulation techniques, which are showing promise for more efficient/cost-effective verification of aerospace structures.

Kenneth R. Hamm Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Ejectable Data Recorder: A Lean, Risk-Informed Approach for Hardware Development

NASA is developing the Orion spacecraft to transport crew from the Earth to the Moon as part of the Artemis series of missions. To provide a crew escape capability from pre-launch through ascent, the Orion vehicle is equipped with a Launch Abort System (LAS), built by Lockheed Martin, which pulls the capsule away from the launch vehicle in the event of an abort scenario. The Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) test flight occurred on July 2, 2019,and tested a production version of the LAS to ensure that it can operate as intended, and to collect a large data set from hundreds of sensors on the vehicle to support Orion flight certification. In the original AA-2 architecture, a single-string set of communications antennas on the LAS would downlink all of the in-flight test data to ground stations. However, that communications architecture was predicted to have data dropouts during abort and jettison of the LAS, and would not support data transmission at all after LAS jettison. As a result, a comprehensive trade study was completed, yielding the addition of antennas on the crew module (CM), a buffer/rebroadcast capability for key portions of the flight, and an ejectable data recorder (EDR) subsystem. This EDR subsystem would serve as a backup to the radio frequency (RF) communications system, and would be non-flight critical, providing a unique capability that enabled management to take a different approach with the hardware and software development. The Crew Module and Separation Ring were developed as “Class 1”Flight Hardware, albeit with some tailoring approaches to enable efficiencies. The Class 1 designation requires full rigor for flight hardware and software, documenting everything that happens to a piece of hardware from procurement through disposal, requiring a full spectrum of acceptance tests, and the highest rigor of quality assurance processes. At the other end of the spectrum, Class 3hardware is controlled, but not intended for flight, and leaves the level of rigor up to the project manager. This classification is often used for research and development projects. Similarly,Class-1E has been recently defined at NASA for ISS payloads and technology development projects that are not flight critical and do not need the full rigor of Class 1 to be successful. The EDR subsystem was challenged at commencement to adopt a skunkworks and agile-like approach to hardware development, allowing for a different risk posture than the rest of the AA-2 hardware. After initially pursuing Class 1 processes, the EDR subsystem design evolved to incorporating numerous commercial components, leading to re-designation as a Class-1E subsystem. The resulting EDR subsystem was fully successful in meeting all flight system requirements, and achieved 100% retrieval of flight test data. This paper will discuss the risk posture of the EDR subsystem and the subsequent tailoring that was enacted as part of its Class-1E status.

EDR↗
NASA NTRS2001

A Hardware-in-the-Loop Testbed for Spacecraft Formation Flying Applications

The Formation Flying Test Bed (FFTB) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is being developed as a modular, hybrid dynamic simulation facility employed for end-to-end guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) analysis and design for formation flying clusters and constellations of satellites. The FFTB will support critical hardware and software technology development to enable current and future missions for NASA, other government agencies, and external customers for a wide range of missions, particularly those involving distributed spacecraft operations. The initial capabilities of the FFTB are based upon an integration of high fidelity hardware and software simulation, emulation, and test platforms developed at GSFC in recent years; including a high-fidelity GPS simulator which has been a fundamental component of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center's GPS Test Facility. The FFTB will be continuously evolving over the next several years from a too[ with initial capabilities in GPS navigation hardware/software- in-the- loop analysis and closed loop GPS-based orbit control algorithm assessment to one with cross-link communications and relative navigation analysis and simulation capability. Eventually the FFT13 will provide full capability to support all aspects of multi-sensor, absolute and relative position determination and control, in all (attitude and orbit) degrees of freedom, as well as information management for satellite clusters and constellations. In this paper we focus on the architecture for the FFT13 as a general GN&C analysis environment for the spacecraft formation flying community inside and outside of NASA GSFC and we briefly reference some current and future activities which will drive the requirements and development.

Leitner, Jesse↗
NASA NTRS2017

Safeguard: Progress and Test Results for a Reliable Independent On-Board Safety Net for UAS

As demands increase to use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for a broad spectrum of commercial applications, regulatory authorities are examining how to safely integrate them without compromising safety or disrupting traditional airspace operations. For small UAS, several operational rules have been established; e.g., do not operate beyond visual line-of-sight, do not fly within five miles of a commercial airport, do not fly above 400 feet above ground level. Enforcing these rules is challenging for UAS, as evidenced by the number of incident reports received by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This paper reviews the development of an onboard system - Safeguard - designed to monitor and enforce conformance to a set of operational rules defined prior to flight (e.g., geospatial stay-out or stay-in regions, speed limits, and altitude constraints). Unlike typical geofencing or geo-limitation functions, Safeguard operates independently of the off-the-shelf UAS autopilot and is designed in a way that can be realized by a small set of verifiable functions to simplify compliance with existing standards for safety-critical systems (e.g. for spacecraft and manned commercial transportation aircraft systems). A framework is described that decouples the system from any other devices on the UAS as well as introduces complementary positioning source(s) for applications that require integrity and availability beyond what can be provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS). This paper summarizes the progress and test results for Safeguard research and development since presentation of the design concept at the 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC '16). Significant accomplishments include completion of software verification and validation in accordance with NASA standards for spacecraft systems (to Class B), development of improved hardware prototypes, development of a simulation platform that allows for hardware-in-the-loop testing and fast-time Monte Carlo evaluations, and flight testing on multiple air vehicles. Integration testing with NASA's UAS Traffic Management (UTM) service-oriented architecture was also demonstrated.

Young, Steven D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Loads and Structural Dynamics Requirements for Spaceflight Hardware

The purpose of this document is to establish requirements relating to the loads and structural dynamics technical discipline for NASA and commercial spaceflight launch vehicle and spacecraft hardware. Requirements are defined for the development of structural design loads and recommendations regarding methodologies and practices for the conduct of load analyses are provided. As such, this document represents an implementation of NASA STD-5002. Requirements are also defined for structural mathematical model development and verification to ensure sufficient accuracy of predicted responses. Finally, requirements for model/data delivery and exchange are specified to facilitate interactions between Launch Vehicle Providers (LVPs), Spacecraft Providers (SCPs), and the NASA Technical Authority (TA) providing insight/oversight and serving in the Independent Verification and Validation role. In addition to the analysis-related requirements described above, a set of requirements are established concerning coupling phenomena or other interaction between structural dynamics and aerodynamic environments or control or propulsion system elements. Such requirements may reasonably be considered structure or control system design criteria, since good engineering practice dictates consideration of and/or elimination of the identified conditions in the development of those subsystems. The requirements are included here, however, to ensure that such considerations are captured in the design space for launch vehicles (LV), spacecraft (SC) and the Launch Abort Vehicle (LAV). The requirements in this document are focused on analyses to be performed to develop data needed to support structural verification. As described in JSC 65828, Structural Design Requirements and Factors of Safety for Spaceflight Hardware, implementation of the structural verification requirements is expected to be described in a Structural Verification Plan (SVP), which should describe the verification of each structural item for the applicable requirements. The requirement for and expected contents of the SVP are defined in JSC 65828. The SVP may also document unique verifications that meet or exceed these requirements with Technical Authority approval.

George James↗
NASA NTRS2016

CASIS Fact Sheet: Hardware and Facilities

Vencore is a proven information solutions, engineering, and analytics company that helps our customers solve their most complex challenges. For more than 40 years, we have designed, developed and delivered mission-critical solutions as our customers' trusted partner. The Engineering Services Contract, or ESC, provides engineering and design services to the NASA organizations engaged in development of new technologies at the Kennedy Space Center. Vencore is the ESC prime contractor, with teammates that include Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Sierra Lobo, Nelson Engineering, EASi, and Craig Technologies. The Vencore team designs and develops systems and equipment to be used for the processing of space launch vehicles, spacecraft, and payloads. We perform flight systems engineering for spaceflight hardware and software; develop technologies that serve NASA's mission requirements and operations needs for the future. Our Flight Payload Support (FPS) team at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) provides engineering, development, and certification services as well as payload integration and management services to NASA and commercial customers. Our main objective is to assist principal investigators (PIs) integrate their science experiments into payload hardware for research aboard the International Space Station (ISS), commercial spacecraft, suborbital vehicles, parabolic flight aircrafts, and ground-based studies. Vencore's FPS team is AS9100 certified and a recognized implementation partner for the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS

Solomon, Michael R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Planetary Protection Technologies for Planetary Science Instruments, Spacecraft, and Missions: Report of the NASA Planetary Protection Technology Definition Team (PPTDT)

Planetary bodies like Mars, Europa, and Enceladus pose the question, "How to study them without contaminating them and destroying future prospects to detect life, if it is there?" The natural trade-off, of course, is that the cleaner your spacecraft, the more you can explore such a body without risk of contaminating it. As chartered by NASA Headquarters, the Planetary Protection Technology Definition Team (PPTDT) was asked to provide a report covering six different areas related to the engineering and technology challenges of implementing planetary protection requirements on solar system exploration missions, including: Assessment of technical and engineering challenges to applying available microbial-reduction methods, including recontamination prevention, to spacecraft hardware and instruments, to meet current NASA requirements on preventing the forward contamination of potentially habitable worlds by future spacecraft missions (orbiters, atmospheric missions, landers, penetrators, and drills); Identification of spacecraft and instrument materials known to be compatible with existing planetary protection protocols; Planetary protection protocols/processes available or which appear promising, and areas ripe for technological development; The technical and engineering challenges in ensuring that spacecraft hardware and instruments can meet organic cleanliness requirements needed to ensure high confidence in differentiating Earth contamination from extraterrestrial signals to avoid false negative as well as false positive results; Approaches for mitigating the identified challenges that would allow instruments to be flown successfully at the required levels of cleanliness and microbial reduction, beginning with identification of commonly used materials and spacecraft hardware that are compatible (or particularly vulnerable) to planetary protection protocols; Engineering, technology, and scientific research and development that could be funded by NASA to provide future capabilities to field scientific instruments and spacecraft on missions that require either subsystem or system-level microbial reduction and recontamination prevention.

John D. Rummel↗
NASA NTRS1974

The Manned Spacecraft Center and medical technology

A number of medically oriented research and hardware development programs in support of manned space flights have been sponsored by NASA. Blood pressure measuring systems for use in spacecraft are considered. In some cases, complete new bioinstrumentation systems were necessary to accomplish a specific physiological study. Plans for medical research during the Skylab program are discussed along with general questions regarding space-borne health service systems and details concerning the Health Services Support Control Center.

Johnston, R. S.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Results of the Advanced Space Structures Technology Research Experiments (ASTREX) hardware and control development

Future DOD, NASA, and SDI space systems will be larger than any spacecraft flown before. The economics of placing these Precision Space Systems (PSS) into orbit dictates that they be as low in mass as possible. This stringent weight reduction creates structural flexibility causing severe technical problems when combined with the precise shape and pointing requirements associated with many future PSS missions. Development of new Control Structure Interaction (CSI) technologies which can solve these problems and enable future space missions is being conducted at the Phillips Laboratory, On-Location Site, CA.

Cossey, Derek F.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Paul D Friz↗
NASA NTRS2019

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE True Planning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE True Planning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE True Planning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Friz, Paul D.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Blind Validation Study of Parametric Cost Estimation Tool SEER-H for NASA Space Missions

One of the primary parametric cost modeling tools used by NASA and the aerospace industry to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware is SEER-H by Galorath. To date, no independent validation of this tool for cost estimation of space missions has been reported in the literature. In the present validation study, cost estimators used SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. The point estimates of SEER-H had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, and a standard deviation of 43%. Nine of the twelve mission's actual costs fell within the 80% confidence interval of SEER's probabilistic estimates. Several factors independent of SEER that may have affected the accuracy of the results have been identified and are discussed; these include: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

SEER-H↗
NASA NTRS2007

Development of a Radio Frequency Space Environment Path Emulator for Evaluating Spacecraft Ranging Hardware

The Formation Flying Testbed (FFTB) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) provides a hardware-in-the-loop test environment for formation navigation and control. The facility is evolving as a modular, hybrid, dynamic simulation facility for end-to-end guidance, navigation and. control (GN&C) design and analysis of formation flying spacecraft. The core capabilities of the FFTB, as a platform for testing critical hardware and software algorithms in-the-loop, have expanded to include S-band Radio Frequency (RF) modems for inter-spacecraft communication and ranging. To enable realistic simulations that require RF ranging sensors for relative navigation, a mechanism is needed to buffer the RF signals exchanged between spacecraft that accurately emulates the dynamic environment through which the RF signals travel, including the effects of medium, moving platforms, and radiated power. The Path Emulator for RF Signals (PERFS), currently under development at NASA GSFC, provides this capability. The function and performance of a prototype device are presented.

Mitchell, Jason W.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Development of Advanced Spacecraft Thermal Subsystems

This presentation discusses ground based proof of concept hardware under development at NASA GSFC to address high heat flux thermal management in silicon substrates and embedded thermal management systems. The goal is to develop proof of concept hardware for space flight validation. The space flight hardware will provide gravity insensitive thermal management for electronics applications such as transmit/receive modules that are severely limited by thermal concerns.

Thermal Control Multifunctional Hardware↗
NASA NTRS2025

The Lucy Spacecraft

The Lucy spacecraft is developed from a combination of heritage components used on other NASA deep space missions, combined with a set of newly developed hardware specific to Lucy’s mission, most critically the solar arrays. These components are configured into a spacecraft capable of launching on the least expensive Atlas launch vehicle, deploying into a power-safe configuration, executing the high-precision Trojan asteroid encounters, and surviving the 12-year mission timeline.

planetary↗
NASA NTRS1994

Generic trending and analysis system

The Generic Trending and Analysis System (GTAS) is a generic spacecraft performance monitoring tool developed by NASA Code 511 and Loral Aerosys. It is designed to facilitate quick anomaly resolution and trend analysis. Traditionally, the job of off-line analysis has been performed using hardware and software systems developed for real-time spacecraft contacts; then, the systems were supplemented with a collection of tools developed by Flight Operations Team (FOT) members. Since the number of upcoming missions is increasing, NASA can no longer afford to operate in this manner. GTAS improves control center productivity and effectiveness because it provides a generic solution across multiple missions. Thus, GTAS eliminates the need for each individual mission to develop duplicate capabilities. It also allows for more sophisticated tools to be developed because it draws resources from several projects. In addition, the GTAS software system incorporates commercial off-the-shelf tools software (COTS) packages and reuses components of other NASA-developed systems wherever possible. GTAS has incorporated lessons learned from previous missions by involving the users early in the development process. GTAS users took a proactive role in requirements analysis, design, development, and testing. Because of user involvement, several special tools were designed and are now being developed. GTAS users expressed considerable interest in facilitating data collection for long term trending and analysis. As a result, GTAS provides easy access to large volumes of processed telemetry data directly in the control center. The GTAS archival and retrieval capabilities are supported by the integration of optical disk technology and a COTS relational database management system.

Keehan, Lori↗