SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “customized exploration”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate Mission and Trade Study Analysis

Mission analysis, as practiced by the NASA Langley Research Center's Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD), consists of activities used to define, assess, and evaluate a wide spectrum of aerospace systems for given requirements. The missions for these systems encompass a broad range from aviation to space exploration. The customer, who is usually another NASA organization or another government agency, often predefines the mission. Once a mission is defined, the goals and objectives that the system will need to meet are delineated and quantified. A number of alternative systems are then typically developed and assessed relative to these goals and objectives. This is done in order to determine the most favorable design approaches for further refinement. Trade studies are performed in order to understand the impact of a requirement on each system and to select among competing design options. Items varied in trade studies typically include: design variables or design constraints; technology and subsystem options; and operational approaches. The results of trade studies are often used to refine the mission and system requirements. SACD studies have been integral to the decision processes of many organizations for decades. Many recent examples of SACD mission and trade study analyses illustrate their excellence and influence. The SACD-led, Agency-wide effort to analyze a broad range of future human lunar exploration scenarios for NASA s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and the Mars airplane design study in support of the Aerial Regional-scale Environment Survey of Mars (ARES) mission are two such examples. This paper describes SACD's mission and trade study analysis activities in general and presents the lunar exploration and Mars airplane studies as examples of type of work performed by the SACD.

Ricks, Wendell↗

NASA NTRS2008

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan: December 20, 2007, Interim Baseline

The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the program s research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration. The document serves several purposes for the Human Research Program: The IRP provides a means to assure that the most significant risks to human space explorers are being adequately mitigated and/or addressed, The IRP shows the relationship of research activities to expected outcomes and need dates, The IRP shows the interrelationships among research activities that may interact to produce products that are integrative or cross defined research disciplines, The IRP illustrates the non-deterministic nature of research and technology activities by showing expected decision points and potential follow-on activities, The IRP shows the assignments of responsibility within the program organization and, as practical, the intended solicitation approach, The IRP shows the intended use of research platforms such as the International Space Station, NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, and various space flight analogs. The IRP does not show all budgeted activities of the Human research program, as some of these are enabling functions, such as management, facilities and infrastructure

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2004

Advanced EVA Capabilities: A Study for NASA's Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concept Program

This report documents the results of a study carried out as part of NASA s Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts Program examining the future technology needs of extravehicular activities (EVAs). The intent of this study is to produce a comprehensive report that identifies various design concepts for human-related advanced EVA systems necessary to achieve the goals of supporting future space exploration and development customers in free space and on planetary surfaces for space missions in the post-2020 timeframe. The design concepts studied and evaluated are not limited to anthropomorphic space suits, but include a wide range of human-enhancing EVA technologies as well as consideration of coordination and integration with advanced robotics. The goal of the study effort is to establish a baseline technology "road map" that identifies and describes an investment and technical development strategy, including recommendations that will lead to future enhanced synergistic human/robot EVA operations. The eventual use of this study effort is to focus evolving performance capabilities of various EVA system elements toward the goal of providing high performance human operational capabilities for a multitude of future space applications and destinations. The data collected for this study indicate a rich and diverse history of systems that have been developed to perform a variety of EVA tasks, indicating what is possible. However, the data gathered for this study also indicate a paucity of new concepts and technologies for advanced EVA missions - at least any that researchers are willing to discuss in this type of forum.

Hoffman, Stephen J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

A Successful Infusion Process for Enabling Lunar Exploration Technologies

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration begins with a more reliable flight capability to the International Space Station and ends with sending humans to Mars. An important stepping stone on the path to Mars encompasses human missions to the Moon. There is little doubt throughout the stakeholder community that new technologies will be required to enable this Vision. However, there are many factors that influence the ability to successfully infuse any technology including the technical risk, requirement and development schedule maturity, and, funds available. This paper focuses on effective infusion processes that have been used recently for the technologies in development for the lunar exploration flight program, Constellation. Recent successes with Constellation customers are highlighted for the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Projects managed by NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). Following an overview of the technical context of both the flight program and the technology capability mapping, the process is described for how to effectively build an integrated technology infusion plan. The process starts with a sound risk development plan and is completed with an integrated project plan, including content, schedule and cost. In reality, the available resources for this development are going to change over time, necessitating some level of iteration in the planning. However, the driving process is based on the initial risk assessment, which changes only when the overall architecture changes, enabling some level of stability in the process.

Over, Ann P.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety And Mission Assurance Integration - The Future Of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

This next wave of lunar exploration will be fundamentally different than the past. The goal today is long term human presence in Earth orbit, exploration around the Moon, exploration anywhere on the Moon, and challenging exploration missions beyond the Moon. Sustainability is the key to enabling human expansion across the solar system and bringing back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities, and requires the early engagement of scientific, international, and U.S. commercial interests, innovations, and new approaches. The Gateway’s agile acquisition strategy will shape the entire system life cycle, from design and analysis through production, verification, launch, logistics and operations. This strategy will encourage new ways of doing business to accommodate new techniques, technologies and approaches; improving affordability and maximizing Gateway utility. The full range of acquisition authorities and contracting mechanisms available to NASA will be considered and appropriately tailored in response to the unique demands of each procurement activity. Gateway will provide scientific and research benefits, in addition to providing a sustainable staging location for crewed lunar surface landings and technology demonstrations that help NASA develop the knowledge and technology needed for Mars missions. These payloads are expected to provide operational and scientific benefit for the duration of their stay on Gateway, as the hardware will provide data during the transit to the Gateway and while in lunar orbit as changes in solar activity occur over time. Gateway is designed to support a variety of utilization activities during both crewed and uncrewed periods and is planned for continuous operations throughout its lifetime. These operations include demonstrating key exploration capabilities in a relevant deep space environment, conducting science beyond the influence of Earth, and providing opportunities for Gateway partners and customers for deep space exploration. Located in cislunar orbit, the Gateway capabilities can be further leveraged to enhance lunar and Mars exploration. With the Gateway and other elements of the Artemis Program, NASA is encouraging new ways of doing business to accommodate new techniques, technologies and approaches, consider affordability, and encourage innovation from U.S. industry.

Helen Vaccaro↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance IAASS Conference Keynote Presentation

Terri Castillo↗

NASA NTRS2011

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan

Crew health and performance are critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes (1) HRP's approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and (2) the method of integration for risk mitigation. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.

Steinberg, Susan↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan

The Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the portfolio of Human Research Program (HRP) research and technology tasks. The IRP is the HRP strategic and tactical plan for research necessary to meet HRP requirements. The need to produce an IRP is established in HRP-47052, Human Research Program - Program Plan, and is under configuration management control of the Human Research Program Control Board (HRPCB). Crew health and performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) is essential to enabling extended periods of space exploration because it provides knowledge and tools to mitigate risks to human health and performance. Risks include physiological and behavioral effects from radiation and hypogravity environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors, and behavioral or psychological factors. The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. Without HRP results, NASA will face unknown and unacceptable risks for mission success and post-mission crew health. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes HRP s approach and research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve HRP customers and how they are integrated to provide a risk mitigation tool. The scope of the IRP is limited to the activities that can be conducted with the resources available to the HRP; it does not contain activities that would be performed if additional resources were available. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illustrates the program s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2012

Structural Dynamic Assessment of the GN2 Piping System for NASA's New and Powerful Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center (GRC) has led the design and build of the new world-class vibroacoustic test capabilities at the NASA GRC's Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio, USA from 2007 to 2011. SAIC-Benham has completed construction of a new reverberant acoustic test facility to support the future testing needs of NASA's space exploration program and commercial customers. The large Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility (RATF) is approximately 101,000 cubic feet in volume and was designed to operate at a maximum empty chamber acoustic overall sound pressure level (OASPL) of 163 dB. This combination of size and acoustic power is unprecedented amongst the world s known active reverberant acoustic test facilities. Initial checkout acoustic testing was performed on March 2011 by SAIC-Benham at test levels up to 161 dB OASPL. During testing, several branches of the gaseous nitrogen (GN2) piping system, which supply the fluid to the noise generating acoustic modulators, failed at their T-junctions connecting the 12 in. supply line to their respective 4 in. branch lines. The problem was initially detected when the oxygen sensors in the horn room indicated a lower than expected oxygen level from which was inferred GN2 leaks in the piping system. In subsequent follow up inspections, cracks were identified in the failed T-junction connections through non-destructive evaluation testing. Through structural dynamic modeling of the piping system, the root cause of the T-junction connection failures was determined. The structural dynamic assessment identified several possible corrective design improvements to the horn room piping system. The effectiveness of the chosen design repairs were subsequently evaluated in September 2011 during acoustic verification testing to 161 dB OASPL.

McNelis, Mark E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VIPER: Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover

We will review the technical components of the NASA lunar rover mission, VIPER, with a focus on software components that rely on ROS 2 and Gazebo. We’ll start with an overview of the hardware and software components. Next, we’ll explore some of the custom Gazebo plugins for simulating the rover and the lunar surface. We’ll describe a fault injection framework that was built on ROS 2 parameters and how it is used to simulate hardware faults. Finally, we’ll see how ROS 2 is used as part of the rover ground software.

Jacob Michael Perron↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Rapid, Flexible Approach to Conceptual Space Mission Tradespace Definition and Exploration

This paper provides an overview of the Mission Tradespace Tool (MTT), a methodology and software framework developed to improve JPL's early design process by offering a rapid, structured, and inexpensive way to identify feasible design architectures from a wide array of candidate architectures. There has been a growing consensus at JPL that to improve the quality of service offered to design customers it is desirable to explore a wide tradespace of candidate architectures prior to forming a conceptual design baseline. This paper describes the rationale behind the MTT's approach to meet this need. Notable features of the framework are introduced and explained.

early designs↗

NASA NTRS2007

High-Performance, Radiation-Hardened Electronics for Space Environments

The Radiation Hardened Electronics for Space Environments (RHESE) project endeavors to advance the current state-of-the-art in high-performance, radiation-hardened electronics and processors, ensuring successful performance of space systems required to operate within extreme radiation and temperature environments. Because RHESE is a project within the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP), RHESE's primary customers will be the human and robotic missions being developed by NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) in partial fulfillment of the Vision for Space Exploration. Benefits are also anticipated for NASA's science missions to planetary and deep-space destinations. As a technology development effort, RHESE provides a broad-scoped, full spectrum of approaches to environmentally harden space electronics, including new materials, advanced design processes, reconfigurable hardware techniques, and software modeling of the radiation environment. The RHESE sub-project tasks are: SelfReconfigurable Electronics for Extreme Environments, Radiation Effects Predictive Modeling, Radiation Hardened Memory, Single Event Effects (SEE) Immune Reconfigurable Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) (SIRF), Radiation Hardening by Software, Radiation Hardened High Performance Processors (HPP), Reconfigurable Computing, Low Temperature Tolerant MEMS by Design, and Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) Integrated Electronics for Extreme Environments. These nine sub-project tasks are managed by technical leads as located across five different NASA field centers, including Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. The overall RHESE integrated project management responsibility resides with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Initial technology development emphasis within RHESE focuses on the hardening of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA)s and Field Programmable Analog Arrays (FPAA)s for use in reconfigurable architectures. As these component/chip level technologies mature, the RHESE project emphasis shifts to focus on efforts encompassing total processor hardening techniques and board-level electronic reconfiguration techniques featuring spare and interface modularity. This phased approach to distributing emphasis between technology developments provides hardened FPGA/FPAAs for early mission infusion, then migrates to hardened, board-level, high speed processors with associated memory elements and high density storage for the longer duration missions encountered for Lunar Outpost and Mars Exploration occurring later in the Constellation schedule.

Keys, Andrew S.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Assessment of Russian VSTOL technology evaluating the YAK-38 'FORGER' and YAK-141 'FREESTYLE'

The dissolution of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) created new relationships between the world superpowers. Overnight, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), formed from the remnants of the FSU, began the difficult transformation to a free market society. Military hardware that had once been highly classified and the basis for our own defense planning was now openly marketed at airshows around the world. 'Test' flights were available for potential customers and cooperative partnerships were explored between former adversaries. This environment permitted a visit to the Yakovlev Design Bureau, (YAK) for a vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) technology assessment. Yakovlev is the FSU's sole Design Bureau with experience in VSTOL aircraft and has developed two flying examples, the YAK-38 'FORGER' and YAK-141 'FREESTYLE'. This article reviews the performance of the YAK-38 'FORGER' and the YAK-141 'FREESTYLE'.

Nalls, Art↗

NASA NTRS2002

Second Generation RLV Space Vehicle Concept

NASA has a long history of conducting development programs and projects in a consistent fashion. Systems Engineering within those programs and projects has also followed a given method outlined by such documents as the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. The relatively new NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) is taking a new approach to developing a space vehicle, with innovative management methods as well as new Systems Engineering processes. With the program less than a year into its life cycle, the efficacy of these new processes has yet to be proven or disproven. At $776M for phase 1, SLI represents a major portion of the NASA focus; however, the new processes being incorporated are not reflected in the training provided by NASA to its engineers. The NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership (APPL) offers core classes in program and project management and systems engineering to NASA employees with the purpose of creating a "knowledge community where ideas, skills, and experiences are exchanged to increase each other's capacity for strong leadership". The SLI program is, in one sense, a combination of a conceptual design program and a technology program. The program as a whole doesn't map into the generic systems engineering project cycle as currently, and for some time, taught. For example, the NASA APPL Systems Engineering training course teaches that the "first step in developing an architecture is to define the external boundaries of the system", which will require definition of the interfaces with other systems and the next step will be to "define all the components that make up the next lower level of the system hierarchy" where fundamental requirements are allocated to each component. Whereas, the SLI technology risk reduction approach develops architecture subsystem technologies prior to developing architectures. The higher level architecture requirements are not allowed to fully develop and undergo decomposition and allocation down to the subsystems before the subsystems must develop allocated requirements based on the highest level of requirements. In the vernacular of the project cycles prior to the mid 1990's, the architecture definition portion of the program appears to be at a generic Phase A stage, while the subsystems are operating at Phase B. Even the management structure of the SLI program is innovative in its approach to Systems Engineering and is not reflected in the APPL training modules. The SLI program has established a Systems Engineering office as an office separate from the architecture development or the subsystem technology development, while that office does have representatives within these other offices. The distributed resources of the Systems Engineering Office are co-located with the respective Project Offices. This template is intended to provide systems engineering as an integrated function at the Program Level. the program management of SLI and the MAT agree that "program/project managers and the systems engineering team must work closely together towards the single objective of delivering quality products that meet the customer needs". This paper will explore the differences between the methods being taught by NASA, which represent decades of ideas, and those currently in practice in SLI. Time will tell if the innovation employed by SLI will prove to be the model of the future. For now, it is suggested that the training of the present exercise the flexibility of recognizing the new processes employed by a major new NASA program.

Bailey, Michelle↗

NASA NTRS2008

Increasing the Cost-efficiency of the DSN

JPL has operated the Deep Space Network (DSN) on behalf of NASA since the 1960's. Over the last two decades, the DSN budget has generally declined in real-year dollars while the aging assets required more attention, and the missions became more complex. As a result, the budget has been increasingly consumed by Operations and Maintenance (O and M), significantly reducing the funding wedge available for technology investment and for enhancing the DSN capability and capacity. Responding to this budget squeeze, the DSN launched an effort to improve the cost-efficiency of the O and M. In this paper we: Analyze the components of O&M. We note for example that, for the DSN, less than 20% of the staff engage in the traditional human-in-front-a-console role, so any effort to increase the cost efficiency must go beyond reducing the number of "Real-time operators." Explain the underlying organizational and cultural structures. Any cost-efficiency activities changes either accept, or carefully modify these structures. For example, the DSN O&M is based on the concept that there are three nearly identical antenna complexes separated by approximately 1200 in latitude and that each antenna complex is operated by a different contractor (driven by international agreements). Explore planned changes in the customer interface, e.g. web-based automated scheduling, and the processes required for a transition. Changes have to be evaluated in the larger end-to-end context, e.g. do the changes provide a net cost-efficiency for the DSN and the missions, or do they merely shift cost from the DSN to the missions. Consider possible significant changes in real-time pass management, e.g. full-remoting of operations, and lights-dim operations, while maintaining (or improving) the performance metrics of the DSN. Investigate how procedural and administrative changes could increase cost-efficiency, in conjunction with changes in the customer interfaces and real-time pass management. Examples would be handling of inter-governmental agreements, improved sharing of resources with other agencies, and better use of commercial (rather than government) resources

Deep Space Network (DSN)↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Habitat Design for Microgravity, Artificial Gravity and Partial Gravity in a Safe Haven Configuration

As space exploration efforts advance towards the returning to Lunar surface and later to Mars, new challenges emerge, and habitation becomes one of them. Having a custom manufacturing line for deep space transit and surface habitats (the Moon or Mars) implies a longer design and production line. Instead of spending great amounts of money and time on custom designs a common development has been explored where the interior architectural functions can be multifunctional, capable of being adapted into distinct gravity conditions. The concept developed for a common design is capable of being adapted to two (2) different layout configurations for a common habitat in a safe haven design: (#1) a habitat that could be used both as a deep space transport in micro gravity and on Mars surface partial gravity; and (#2) a habitat that could be used both as a deep space transport in artificial gravity and on Mars surface partial gravity. These designs have the potential to diminish manufacturing time and cost, but also reducing crew training time increasing crew adaptability to their habitation and gravity condition.

Paola M Gonzalez Marquez↗

NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases.1 Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission.2 Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an Advanced Design Methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of Design of Experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development e ort. In order to t a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated \what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are t to the outputs of each environment and are integrated via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any \what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will have the potential to lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases. Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission. Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an advanced design methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of design of experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development effort. In order to fit a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of ground rules and assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated "what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are fit to the outputs of each environment and are "integrated" via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any ''what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will help ensure lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗