Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “funding model”

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 NTRS2019

Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Studies Performed in the NASA Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel

This paper highlights results from a collaborative study performed by The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI) and NASA Langley Research Center on the Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction (SWBLI) generated by a cylindrical protuberance on a flat plate in a Mach 6 flow. The study was performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center and consisted of two separate entries. In the first entry, simultaneous high-speed schlieren and high-speed pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) imaging – which was performed for the first time in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility at NASA Langley – were performed as well as simultaneous high-speed schlieren and oil-flow imaging. In the second entry, the model configuration was modified to increase the size of the interaction region. High-speed schlieren and infrared thermography (IR) surface imaging were performed in this second entry. The goal of these tests was to characterize the SBLI in the presence of a laminar, transitional, and turbulent boundary layer using high-speed optical imaging techniques. AoA = sting angle-of-attack (°) dcylinder = cylinder diameter (mm) dtrip = cylindrical tripping element diameter (mm) Δshock = shock stand-off distance (mm) hcylinder = cylinder height (mm) htrip = cylindrical tripping element height (mm) HSS = high-speed schlieren M∞ = freestream Mach number PSP = pressure-sensitive paint Re∞ = freestream unit Reynolds number (m-1) SWBLI = shockwave/boundary-layer interaction θplate = model plate angle (°) Introduction his paper highlights two experimental entries performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Blowdown Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center in collaboration with The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI). The purpose of these entries was to characterize the dynamic shockwave/boundary-layer interaction (SWBLI) between a vertical cylinder on a flat plate and laminar, transitional (XSWBLI), and turbulent (SWTBLI) boundary layers with a freestream Mach number of 6 using non-intrusive optical diagnostics. Experiments performed by Murphree et al.1,2 were among the first to specifically characterize XSWBLI induced by a vertical cylinder on a flat plate geometry using several optical measurement techniques. Recent optical studies of XSWBLI phenomenon have been performed by UTSI at Mach 2 in their low-enthalpy blow wind tunnel3-8 and by Texas A&M University and UTSI at Mach numbers of 6 and 7 in their Adjustable Contour Expansion wind tunnel.9 The experiments described in this paper were intended to complement previous studies by expanding the freestream unit Reynolds number range, Re∞, over which the XSWBLI phenomena has been observed. Additionally these experiments, made possible under NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project, promoted collaboration between university and NASA researchers. The initial entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley occurred in December of 2016. Originally, testing was to occur in November of 2016 in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley. This facility was chosen so that the XSWBLI phenomenon could be observed at much higher Mach numbers than had previously been attempted in ground test experiments. The model selected for this experiment, a 10° half-angle wedge with a sharp leading edge (described in detail in section II.B), had previously been used by Danehy et al. [10] for boundary layer transition studies using the nitric oxide planar laser-induced fluorescence (NO PLIF) flow visualization technique. In that work, it was determined that transition could be induced downstream of a single htrip = 1-mm tall, dtrip = 4-mm diameter cylindrical tripping element and that the streamwise location of the transition could be changed for a single Re∞ by changing the model angle-of-attack (AoA) (see Fig. A3 in Ref. [10] for more details). Based on the findings of that work, a decision was made to use the wedge model with the cylindrical tripping element to trip the boundary layer flow ahead of a cylindrical protuberance in order to achieve a XSWBLI. Unfortunately, the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility had been taken offline for repairs in October of 2016 and a decision was made to move the test to the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility. Since the behavior of the boundary layer with the chosen model configuration had not been studied before in that facility and the available test time was limited, the entry was considered to be exploratory and was used to collect spatially-resolved and time-resolved flow and surface visualization data that would be used to inform a second entry. Test techniques included simultaneous high-speed schlieren (HSS) captured at 160 kHz and high-speed pressure sensitive paint captured at 10 kHz as well as oil flow visualization, captured at 750 Hz. The second entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility occurred in June and July of 2017. In this follow-on test, modifications to the wind tunnel model were made based on observations made during the first entry and included removing the cylindrical tripping element, increasing the size of the cylinder used to induce the SWBLI to increase the size of the interaction while simultaneously improving spatial resolution, and using a swept ramp array, similar to that described in Ref. [11], to trip the flow to turbulence. Simultaneous HSS (captured at 140 kHz, 100 kHz, and 40 kHz) and conventional IR thermography (captured at 30 Hz) imaging were performed simultaneously in this follow-on entry. This paper is intended to serve as a summary of the work performed during these two entries, to detail lessons learned from each entry, and to highlight some of the datasets acquired. Details on the experimental setup, model configuration, and techniques used are provided. Papers providing a more rigorous analysis of data acquired during the second entry, including statistical, spectral, and modal decomposition methods, can be found in Refs. [12,13]. An entry examining XSWBLI in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Blowdown Wind Tunnel facility is currently planned for mid-to-late calendar year 2019, pending the success of facility repairs. The work performed and described in this paper and the upcoming entry in the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility at NASA Langley have been made possible by NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project. Wind Tunnel Facility All experiments discussed in this paper were performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center. Specific details pertaining to this facility can be found in Refs. [14,15], with only a brief description of the facility provided here. For both entries, the nominal freestream unit Reynolds number was varied between 1.8×106 m-1 (0.5×106 ft-1) and 26.3×106 m-1 (8×106 ft-1). The nominal stagnation pressure was varied between 0.21 MPa and 3.33 MPa and the nominal stagnation temperature was varied between 480 K and 520 K to achieve the desired Re∞ condition. For all runs, the nominal freestream Mach number was 6. The nearly square test section is 520.7-mm (20.5-inches) wide by 508-mm (20-inches) high. Two 431.8-mm (17-inch) diameter windows made of Corning 7940, Grade 5F schlieren-quality glass serve as the side walls of the tunnel and provide optical access for the high-speed schlieren measurements. A rectangular window made of the same material as the side windows served as the top wall of the test section and provided optical access for the high-speed PSP and oil flow measurements. For the second entry, this top window was replaced with a Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) window with an anti-reflection coating capable of passing IR wavelengths between 8μm and 12μm with greater than 98% transmittance. The model was sting supported by a strut attached to a hydraulic system that allows for the model pitch angle to be adjusted between -5° to +55°. For the first entry, an initial pitch/pause sweep of the model AoA was performed to observe the resulting SWBLI. Ultimately, however, the sting pitch angle for this entry was fixed at +10.0° so that the angle of the top surface of the wedge relative to the streamwise axis of the tunnel (referred to herein as the plate angle, θplate), was θplate = 0°. For the second entry, θplate = 0° and θplate = -13.25° were initially tested with the swept ramp array (discussed in the following section) to determine which orientation produced conditions most favorable for XSWBLI to occur based on the heating signatures observed over the top surface of the model in the IR thermography images. Based on these initial tests, θplate = -13.25° was set for the remainder of the runs in the second entry. For both entries, any model changes were performed in a housing located beneath the closed test section. Prior to performing a run of the tunnel, the housing was sealed and the tunnel started. Once the appropriate freestream conditions were achieved, the model was injected into the test section using a hydraulic injection system. B. Model Geometry For all runs, a 10° half-angle (20° full-angle) wedge model with a sharp leading edge was used. The model is described in detail in Refs. [10,16]. The top surface of the sharp leading edge of the model extended 47.8 mm from its upstream-most edge to a junction with the upstream edge of a stainless steel top plate that then extended an (a) (c) (b) Fig. 1 (a) Schematic of top surface of wedge model with gas seeding insert, (b) perspective view of the model in the 20-Inch Mach 6 tunnel with centerline pressure orifices on sharp leading edge, and (c) a perspective view of the model with stainless steel (top) and SLA middle insert (bottom) during the first entry. Flow occurs from left to right.

Bathel, Brett F.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Coupling Processes Between Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate

This is the first semi-annual report for NAS5-97039 summarizing work performed for January 1997 through June 1997. Work in this project is related to NAS1-20666, also funded by NASA ACMAP. The work funded in this project also benefits from work at AER associated with the AER three-dimensional isentropic transport model funded by NASA AEAP and the AER two-dimensional climate-chemistry model (co-funded by Department of Energy). The overall objective of this project is to improve the understanding of coupling processes between atmospheric chemistry and climate. Model predictions of the future distributions of trace gases in the atmosphere constitute an important component of the input necessary for quantitative assessments of global change. We will concentrate on the changes in ozone and stratospheric sulfate aerosol, with emphasis on how ozone in the lower stratosphere would respond to natural or anthropogenic changes. The key modeling tools for this work are the AER two-dimensional chemistry-transport model, the AER two-dimensional stratospheric sulfate model, and the AER three-wave interactive model with full chemistry.

Ko, M. K. W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

United States Nuclear Rocket Company (USNRC)

Historically, the development of advanced space technology has been accomplished by the federal government providing funding to commercial companies through the standard contracting process. Although recently, commercial space ventures, such as Space X, have begun to develop enhanced commercial space launch capabilities, and many companies provide space related services - including satellite development and operations, advanced technology development still requires (and should require) participation by the federal agency assigned this role - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). However, this standard funding model may not be the most efficient and stable means of developing the advanced technology systems. And while the federal government does not need to be involved in areas where private industry can reasonably operate, it should remain the leader in supporting the development of new and advanced space technologies to further increase our national capability. And as these technologies mature, then private industry can begin the commercialization process, freeing up resources and funds for NASA to develop the next generations of advanced space technology. In fact, simply examining the last decades of space technology development shows that there is room for improvement. Part of the problem is that there are realistically two space frontiers. There is the commercialization frontier (the realm of Space X and others) and the exploratory frontier (the realm of NASA.). Often technologies that can support the exploratory frontier can also immediately support the commercialization frontier. Yet, these technologies are still developed under the standard model of federal funding and contracting. Is that really the best way to proceed? In this paper, the argument is put forward that a new process is required, a new paradigm. A consortium of federal agencies as well as commercial companies is needed - in a collaborative rather than a contractual relationship.

Hardin, L. A.↗
NASA NTRS2020

The “Gearamid” Model: Transforming NASA Langley’s Role in the Aerospace Technology Ecosystem

NASA’s operating environment is evolving: numerous new emerging technologies are converging to create breakthrough solutions, many nontraditional players are partnering to create those solutions, and a diverse array of new public-private funding models are being employed. A team at NASA’s Langley Research Center (LaRC) developed a model to describe the challenges that must be addressed for an emerging breakthrough technology to penetrate the appropriate market sector, and how all the players in the relevant ecosystem can collaborate to accelerate the market infusion process. This model, which the team dubbed the “Gearamid,” originated from a narrower study to determine what LaRC should do to capitalize on and advance autonomous technology as a “game changer” in the civil aerospace domain. The elements in the original version of the Gearamid depict the various challenges that need to be addressed as an autonomous technology proceeds from initial development to market infusion. In addition, the Gearamid indicates the “actors” best suited to address each challenge element. The study team noted that all challenge elements in the Gearamid must be worked concurrently to assure successful infusion of autonomous solutions. The team also found that NASA expertise naturally positions Agency organizations—including LaRC—to lead contributions that address certain challenge elements and to play a supplemental role in other areas where entities external to NASA are actively working and investing to solve challenges. Furthermore, the team concluded that NASA can play a leadership role in coordinating efforts of the diverse entities across the civil aerospace community. After determining the center’s optimal role in the autonomous technology development ecosystem, the study team then extrapolated the Gearamid model for autonomous technologies into a broader, more general model depicting the challenge elements that must be overcome to develop and infuse any emerging technology. LaRC has embraced the Gearamid model and is using it to drive changes that will transform the center and allow it to function optimally in the evolving landscape. Given LaRC’s successes, the study team suggests that other organizations may also be able to use the Gearamid model to inform future planning/strategy efforts.

Jill M Marlowe↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Center for Isotope Cosmochemistry and Geochronology at NASA Johnson Space Center

Ten years in the making the Center for Isotope Cosmochemistry and Geochronology (CICG) at NASA Johnson Space Center is designed to be a cooperative analytical facility where novel techniques are developed and performed. Our team works collaboratively to operate this integrated lab suite comprising sample preparation, metal-free clean chemistry, and mass spectrometers to measure a wide variety of elements and isotopes in astromaterials. Contamination control is enacted throughout by a positive pressure cascade of HEPA filtered air, weekly surface cleaning and particle counting. Astromaterials processing is performed with application-specific mortar and pestles, heavy liquid separation, a Frantz magnetic separator, as well as hand-picking using optical microscopes in laminar flow boxes. Microsampling is also carried out using a New Wave MicroMill. Elements for isotopic analysis are isolated from acid-digested samples using ion-exchange chromatography. Cross-contamination is minimized with dedicated laminar flow boxes and labware for different purification protocols. Instrumentation includes a ThermoFisher Element XR inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) for quantification of elemental concentrations in dissolved sample solutions. For in situ analysis, a Teledyne Photon Machines Analyte Excite+ laser ablation system is coupled to the Element XR. The ThermoFisher Triton thermal ionization mass spectrometer (TIMS) is used to measure the isotopic composition of elements such as CA, K, Cr, Rb, Sr, Sm, Nd at high precision in processed samples. For a more diverse range of isotopic analyses, CICG houses a Nu Sapphire 1700 multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC-ICP-MS), which is a large geometry instrument with a multi-pole collision cell for interference removal. An Applied Spectra Instruments J200 femto-second laser is planned for install this Fall and will be coupled to the Nu Sapphire 1700. NASA’s Internal Scientist Funding Model (ISFM)supports this facility. Advanced analytical geochemistry techniques are applied to targeted astromaterials to address important problems in planetary sciences, with a longer-term goal of preparing for samples collected and returned by space missions. CICG is open to collaborations on projects that utilize the facility’s unique capabilities and are within its research scope. We are particularly eager to support and share expertise with the next generation of planetary scientists.

Justin I Simon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Status on the Recovery of Voyager Plasma Electron Observations at Jupiter

We give status report on the recovery of Voyager 1 and 2 plasma electron observations during their Jupiter flybys. The plan is to complete this analysis including new results never published before. The original summary data tapes and later datafiles were evidently permanently lost along with our past analysis results of the plasma electron observations except for that shown in previous publications. These summary data tapes included the plasma ion and electron raw datafiles, status words needed to convert data numbers to currents, SEDR data with trajectory and attitude information and magnetic field measurements. In addition to recovering the plasma electron plasma observations (electron intensities and fluid parameters of the thermal and suprathermal electron populations, respectively), the SEDR trajectory information during the out bound passes were lost but fortunately in the past the SEDR files were converted to Spice Kernals, so this unexpected problem was solved. In addition, we had to rewrite our read routines it looked like the previous read routines so the rest of the Fortran code could be used; the Fortran- code had to be modified to work with the latest compilers and computer platforms. We will report on the- status of our work- originally funded under the Planetary Data Archiving, Restoration, and Tools (PDART)program but now being funded by the Internal Scientist Funding Model (ISFM) Exosphere Ionosphere Magnetospheres Modeling (EIMM)program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

E C Sittler Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recovery of Voyager Plasma Electron Observations at Jupiter

We will present our recovery of Voyager 1 and 2 plasma electron observations during their Jupiter flybys. The analysis is expected to be completed by the time of the Fall AGU 2023 Meeting and stored in Goddard’s Data Center and we will present new results never published before. The original summary data tapes and later data files at first appeared to be permanently lost but eventually located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while data analysis results done at Goddard Space Flight Center, except for that published in journals, were permanently lost such as electron distribution functions, spacecraft trajectory and spacecraft attitude information. In addition to recovering the electron plasma observations (electron intensities and fluid parameters of the thermal and suprathermal electron populations, respectively), we use Spice Kernels for Voyager 1 and 2 trajectory and spacecraft attitude information, fortunately produced by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We will present new results of our work, originally funded under the Planetary Data Archiving, Restoration, and Tools (PDART) program but now being funded by the Internal Scientist Funding Model (ISFM) Exosphere Ionosphere Magnetospheres Modeling (EIMM) program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. If time permits, we will also present some of our recovery of the Voyager 2 Uranus plasma electron data and analysis similar to what was done for Jupiter.

E.C. Sittler Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recovery of Voyager Plasma Electron Observations at Jupiter

We will present our recovery of Voyager 1 and 2 plasma electron observations during their Jupiter flybys. The analysis is expected to be completed by the time of the Fall AGU 2023 Meeting and stored in Goddard’s Data Center and we will present new results never published before. The original summary data tapes and later data files at first appeared to be permanently lost but eventually located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while data analysis results done at Goddard Space Flight Center, except for that published in journals, were permanently lost such as electron distribution functions, spacecraft trajectory and spacecraft attitude information. In addition to recovering the electron plasma observations (electron intensities and fluid parameters of the thermal and suprathermal electron populations, respectively), we use Spice Kernels for Voyager 1 and 2 trajectory and spacecraft attitude information, fortunately produced by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We will present new results of our work, originally funded under the Planetary Data Archiving, Restoration, and Tools (PDART) program but now being funded by the Internal Scientist Funding Model (ISFM) Exosphere Ionosphere Magnetospheres Modeling (EIMM) program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. If time permits, we will also present some of our recovery of the Voyager 2 Uranus plasma electron data and analysis similar to what was done for Jupiter.

E.C. Sittler Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Development of a funding, cost, and spending model for satellite projects

The need for a predictive budget/funging model is obvious. The current models used by the Resource Analysis Office (RAO) are used to predict the total costs of satellite projects. An effort to extend the modeling capabilities from total budget analysis to total budget and budget outlays over time analysis was conducted. A statistical based and data driven methodology was used to derive and develop the model. Th budget data for the last 18 GSFC-sponsored satellite projects were analyzed and used to build a funding model which would describe the historical spending patterns. This raw data consisted of dollars spent in that specific year and their 1989 dollar equivalent. This data was converted to the standard format used by the RAO group and placed in a database. A simple statistical analysis was performed to calculate the gross statistics associated with project length and project cost ant the conditional statistics on project length and project cost. The modeling approach used is derived form the theory of embedded statistics which states that properly analyzed data will produce the underlying generating function. The process of funding large scale projects over extended periods of time is described by Life Cycle Cost Models (LCCM). The data was analyzed to find a model in the generic form of a LCCM. The model developed is based on a Weibull function whose parameters are found by both nonlinear optimization and nonlinear regression. In order to use this model it is necessary to transform the problem from a dollar/time space to a percentage of total budget/time space. This transformation is equivalent to moving to a probability space. By using the basic rules of probability, the validity of both the optimization and the regression steps are insured. This statistically significant model is then integrated and inverted. The resulting output represents a project schedule which relates the amount of money spent to the percentage of project completion.

Johnson, Jesse P.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Barotropic Tidal Predictions and Validation in a Relocatable Modeling Environment

Under funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Mississippi State University Center for Air Sea Technology (CAST) has been working on developing a Relocatable Modeling Environment (RME) to provide a uniform and unbiased infrastructure for efficiently configuring numerical models in any geographic or oceanic region. Under Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) funding, the model was implemented and tested for NAVOCEANO use. With our current emphasis on ocean tidal modeling, CAST has adopted the Colorado University's numerical ocean model, known as CURReNTSS (Colorado University Rapidly Relocatable Nestable Storm Surge) Model, as the model of choice. During the RME development process, CURReNTSS has been relocated to several coastal oceanic regions, providing excellent results that demonstrate its veracity. This report documents the model validation results and provides a brief description of the Graphic user Interface.

Mehra, Avichal↗
NASA NTRS1998

Barotropic Tidal Predictions and Validation in a Relocatable Modeling Environment

Under funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), the Mississippi State University Center for Air Sea Technology (CAST) has been working on developing a Relocatable Modeling Environment(RME) to provide a uniform and unbiased infrastructure for efficiently configuring numerical models in any geographic/oceanic region. Under Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO-CEANO) funding, the model was implemented and tested for NAVOCEANO use. With our current emphasis on ocean tidal modeling, CAST has adopted the Colorado University's numerical ocean model, known as CURReNTSS (Colorado University Rapidly Relocatable Nestable Storm Surge) Model, as the model of choice. During the RME development process, CURReNTSS has been relocated to several coastal oceanic regions, providing excellent results that demonstrate its veracity. This report documents the model validation results and provides a brief description of the Graphic user Interface (GUI).

Mehra, Avichal↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRS2023

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. In light of this transition, NASA senior leadership tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions: 1) what are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms, and 2) in light of these options, what modifications would be helpful to make in the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership and the NASA management processes as NASA plans for the transition of the ISS by 2030? To answer the first question, we conducted a stakeholder-driven analysis to identify a trade space of six differentiated model options. We then evaluated their performance in three potential future scenarios, according to evaluation criteria deemed important to stakeholders. The six models are illustrative and representational of a potential trade space. Additionally, each model requires change to current legislation. To further aid in leadership decision-making, we provided considerations for how to strengthen each model by mixing and matching different model aspects. To answer the second question, we looked to strengths of the top-performing models to evolve the current ISSNL-CASIS relationship and improve NASA’s posture for success post-ISS. We identified four possible modifications to the ISSNL-CASIS partnership and NASA’s management of these activities. By implementing these modifications early, NASA can increase the return from ISSNL-CASIS and help prepare for future models as one or more CLD replaces the ISS by 2030.

ISS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post–International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. As the LEO ecosystem evolves through growth of the commercial space industry and NASA’s strategic goal to support the development of a robust LEO economy in which many stakeholders on Earth can participate, so must the way NASA facilitates government activities to ensure citizens realize the highest return on their investment in LEO. Specifically, this study aims to answer the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or -subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms?

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

The International Space Station National Lab (ISSNL) was established through Congressional authority in 2005 and has been managed by a nonprofit called the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) since 2011 to support research, development, education, and commercial activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity and orbital activities in LEO in preparation for the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and transition to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) in the 2030 timeframe. Specifically, our study team within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy addressed the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms? To inform the trade space of potential models, we conducted over 40 discussions with stakeholders internal and external to NASA and reviewed over 35 documents related to LEO legislation, commercialization, models, and activities. Following the extensive literature review and discussions with diverse stakeholders, we defined and evaluated six models, in addition to the current ISSNL model. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios (dynamic, steady, and limited growth of the commercial LEO market and activities) and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria (ability to meet NASA’s needs, adaptability, opportunity for collaboration, market sustainability, and equity and accessibility). The six models in the future trade space were: • Government Research Broker: Customizable research efforts on transport vehicles and CLDs • Innovation Campus: Modern terrestrial campus with workforce focus • Anchor Tenant: Long-term, substantial agreement for leasing space on a single CLD • Fee for Service: Free market approach with NASA-sponsored grants and service/data buys • Matchmaker: Neutral third-party connecting users to platforms • Institute Network: Network of separate but related efforts to enable commercial scaling The Government Research Broker model performed best across the scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibited positive aspects, the two models performed most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. The six models presented in this study are representative of the potential trade space and are illustrative examples. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align to their priorities more closely by using combinations of the unique model features provided in our analysis. The optimal model is likely a combination of features from multiple models. Building upon this work to best position NASA and the diverse stakeholders of LEO activities for success post-ISS, further work will explore the near-term impact of preparing for the transition of the ISS to CLDs by identifying opportunities for modifying the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many reviewers and discussants, internal and external to NASA, that contributed to the work.

Erica Rodgers↗