Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “commons”

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

Commonality analysis for the NASA Space Station Common Module

The concept of commonality to enhance cost savings, as applied to NASA's Space Station Common Module (CM), is explored. The equipment to be included in the CM is organized by subsystems of structure, power, thermal, command and data handling, environmental control and life support, and crew station. The weight, volume, and quantity of each instrument item will be subsequently added to support a cost model. The CM concept, its reference configuration, power distribution and management, and cost sensitivity options are discussed in detail. Some computer programs are outlined, stressing the importance of the existing capabilities of the STS and the optimum commonality case.

Powell, L. E.↗

Comparison of the Capacitances and Switching Losses of 1.2 kV Common-Source and Common- Drain Bidirectional Switch Topologies

Bidirectional, or four-quadrant switches (FQS) can be designed as back-to-back MOSFETs connected in common-drain (CD) or common-source (CS) topologies. CDFQS and CS-FQS assembled from discrete 1.2 kV commercially available SiC power MOSFETs were characterized to obtain capacitance and switching loss values. The CD-FQS exhibited a 1.17x larger turn-on loss compared to the CS-FQS, while the CS-FQS exhibited a 1.52x larger turn-off loss compared to the CD-FQS. The CS-FQS exhibited a lower input capacitance, while the CD-FQS exhibited a lower output and reverse transfer capacitance.

Silicon Carbide, Bidirectional Switch, Switching P↗

Common origin of warm dark matter and dark radiation

We consider a cosmological scenario where a relativistic particle and a stable massive particle are simultaneously produced from the decay of a late-decaying particle after Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis but before matter-radiation equality. The relativistic and massive particles behave as dark radiation and warm dark matter, respectively. Due to a common origin, the warmness and abundances are closely related. We refer to the models that lead to such a scenario as Common Origin of Warm and Relativistic Decay Products (COWaRD). We show that COWaRD predicts a correlation between the amount of dark radiation and suppression of the large scale structure, which can be tested in future precision cosmology observations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that COWaRD is realized, as an example, in a class of supersymmetric axion models and that future observations by the next generation Cosmic Microwave Background, Large Scale Structure, and 21-cm surveys can reveal the structure of the theory.

cosmology of theories beyond the SM↗

Advanced space system concepts and their orbital support needs (1980 - 2000). Volume 4: Detailed data. Part 2: Program plans and common support needs (a study of the commonality of space vehicle applications to future national needs

The methodology of alternate world future scenarios is utilized for selecting a plausible, though not advocated, set of future scenarios each of which results in a program plan appropriate for the respective environment. Each such program plan gives rise to different building block and technology requirements, which are analyzed for common need between the NASA and the DoD for each of the alternate world scenarios. An essentially invariant set of system, building block, and technology development plans is presented at the conclusion, intended to allow protection of most of the options for system concepts regardless of what the actual future world environment turns out to be. Thus, building block and technology needs are derived which support: (1) each specific world scenario; (2) all the world scenarios identified in this study; or (3) generalized scenarios applicable to almost any future environment. The output included in this volume consists of the building blocks, i.e.: transportation vehicles, orbital support vehicles, and orbital support facilities; the technology required to support the program plans; identification of their features which could support the DoD and NASA in common; and a complete discussion of the planning methodology.

Bekey, I.↗

Mathematical Models of the Common-Source and Common-Gate Amplifiers using a Metal-Ferroelectric-Semiconductor Field effect Transistor

Mathematical models of the common-source and common-gate amplifiers using metal-ferroelectric- semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) are developed in this paper. The models are compared against data collected with MOSFETs of varying channel lengths and widths, and circuit parameters such as biasing conditions are varied as well. Considerations are made for the capacitance formed by the ferroelectric layer present between the gate and substrate of the transistors. Comparisons between the modeled and measured data are presented in depth as well as differences and advantages as compared to the performance of each circuit using a MOSFET.

Hunt, Mitchell↗

Extended Characterization of the Common-Source and Common-Gate Amplifiers using a Metal-Ferroelectric-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor

Collected data for both common-source and common-gate amplifiers is presented in this paper. Characterizations of the two amplifier circuits using metal-ferroelectric-semiconductor field effect transistors (MFSFETs) are developed with wider input frequency ranges and varying device sizes compared to earlier characterizations. The effects of the ferroelectric layer's capacitance and variation load, quiescent point, or input signal on each circuit are discussed. Comparisons between the MFSFET and MOSFET circuit operation and performance are discussed at length as well as applications and advantages for the MFSFETs.

Hunt, Mitchell↗

Developing a common approach for classifying building stock energy models

Buildings contribute 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, strategies that can substantially reduce emissions from the building stock are key components of broader efforts to mitigate climate change and achieve sustainable development goals. Models that represent the energy use of the building stock at scale under various scenarios of technology deployment have become essential tools for the development and assessment of such strategies. Within the past decade, the capabilities of building stock energy models have improved considerably, while model transferability and sharing has increased. Given these advancements, a new scheme for classifying building stock energy models is needed to facilitate communication of modeling approaches and the handling of important model dimensions. In this article, we present a new building stock energy model classification framework that leverages international modeling expertise from the participants of the International Energy Agency's Annex 70 on Building Energy Epidemiology. Drawing from existing classification studies, here we propose a multi-layer quadrant scheme that classifies modeling techniques by their design (top-down or bottom-up) and degree of transparency (black-box or white-box); hybrid techniques are also addressed. The quadrant scheme is unique from previous classification approaches in its non-hierarchical organization, coverage of and ability to incorporate emerging modeling techniques, and treatment of additional modeling dimensions. The new classification framework will be complemented by a reporting protocol and online registry of existing models as part of ongoing work in Annex 70 to increase the interpretability and utility of building stock energy models for energy policy making.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗

Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy

Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.

common cause failures↗

Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy

Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.

common cause failures↗

Lunar and Martian hardware commonality

A number of different hardware elements were examined for possible Moon/Mars program commonality. These include manned landers; cargo landers, a trans-Mars injection (TMI) stage, traverse vehicles, unmanned surface rovers, habitation modules, and power supplies. Preliminary analysis indicates that it is possible to build a common two-stage manned lander. A single-stage, reusable lander may be practical for the lunar cast, but much less so for the Martian case, and commonality may therefore exist only at the subsystem level. A modified orbit transfer vehicle was examined as a potential cargo lander. Potential cargoes to various destinations were calculated for a Shuttle external tank sized TMI stage. A nuclear powered, long range traverse vehicle was conceptually designed and commonality is considered feasible. Short range, unmanned rovers can be made common without great effort. A surface habitation module may be difficult to make common due to difficulties in landing certain shapes on the Martian surface with aerobraking landers. Common nuclear power sources appear feasible. High temperature radiators appear easy to make common. Low temperature radiators may be difficult to make common. In most of these cases, Martian requirements determine the design.

Davis, Hubert P.↗

Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone

The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.

Surface Mobility↗

Common Cause Failures and Ultra Reliability

A common cause failure occurs when several failures have the same origin. Common cause failures are either common event failures, where the cause is a single external event, or common mode failures, where two systems fail in the same way for the same reason. Common mode failures can occur at different times because of a design defect or a repeated external event. Common event failures reduce the reliability of on-line redundant systems but not of systems using off-line spare parts. Common mode failures reduce the dependability of systems using off-line spare parts and on-line redundancy.

reliability↗

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗

Expert system development for commonality analysis in space programs

This report is a combination of foundational mathematics and software design. A mathematical model of the Commonality Analysis problem was developed and some important properties discovered. The complexity of the problem is described herein and techniques, both deterministic and heuristic, for reducing that complexity are presented. Weaknesses are pointed out in the existing software (System Commonality Analysis Tool) and several improvements are recommended. It is recommended that: (1) an expert system for guiding the design of new databases be developed; (2) a distributed knowledge base be created and maintained for the purpose of encoding the commonality relationships between design items in commonality databases; (3) a software module be produced which automatically generates commonality alternative sets from commonality databases using the knowledge associated with those databases; and (4) a more complete commonality analysis module be written which is capable of generating any type of feasible solution.

Yeager, Dorian P.↗

A class 2 weight assessment for the implementation of commonality and preliminary structural designs for the family of commuter airplanes

The feasibility of commonality objectives are determined. Commonality is discussed in terms of weight penalties that increase the take-off weight of several members of the family of airplanes. Preliminary designs of fuselage structural members and a discussion of weight penalties due to implementation of common fuselage structure throughout the family is examined. Wing torque box designs are discussed along with structural weight penalties incurred. A landing gear design study is contained along with the weight penalties that a common gear system will impose. Implementation of common power plants throughout the family and the weight penalties that occur are discussed. The weight penalties imposed by commonality on all the airplanes in the family are summarized. Class 2 breakdowns are also presented. The feasibility of commonality based on a percentage of take-off weight increase over the Class 2 baseline weights is then assessed.

Creighton, Tom↗