Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on NASA/University Advanced Space Design Program

Topics discussed include: lunar transportation system, Mars rover, lunar fiberglass production, geosynchronous space stations, regenerative system for growing plants, lunar mining devices, lunar oxygen transporation system, mobile remote manipulator system, Mars exploration, launch/landing facility for a lunar base, and multi-megawatt nuclear power system

Engineering Resilient Space Systems

Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult, harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards, such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration, that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return. Science objectives will have to be revised ‘on the fly’, with new data collection and navigation decisions on short timescales. Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations without increasing risk or system complexity? These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022 (National Research Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study: 1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail; 2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination (essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid, requiring response on short notice; and 3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system. The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emerged—adaptation in the presence of changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various ways—anomalies, disruptions, discoveries—but they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions. Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration, namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including 2 other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the ‘problem space’ as an organizing theme, and the second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the ‘solution space’. In each workshop, focused discussions and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers. The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups, each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were: 1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions 2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA 3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications, and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories: architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions. The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions: 1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period, the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these missions. 2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable terms—project cost, mission risk, and quality of science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns. 3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, ‘smart’ power grid control, cyber-physical systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative proposals and joint research as a result of the study. 4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the 3 risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F. 5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities. Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations. Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals. Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systems—this study provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process

NASA Capability Roadmaps Executive Summary

This document is the result of eight months of hard work and dedication from NASA, industry, other government agencies, and academic experts from across the nation. It provides a summary of the capabilities necessary to execute the Vision for Space Exploration and the key architecture decisions that drive the direction for those capabilities. This report is being provided to the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) team for consideration in development of an architecture approach and investment strategy to support NASA future mission, programs and budget requests. In addition, it will be an excellent reference for NASA's strategic planning. A more detailed set of roadmaps at the technology and sub-capability levels are available on CD. These detailed products include key driving assumptions, capability maturation assessments, and technology and capability development roadmaps

In-Space Assembly Capability Assessment for Potential Human Exploration and Science Applications

Human missions to Mars present several major challenges that must be overcome, including delivering multiple large mass and volume elements, keeping the crew safe and productive, meeting cost constraints, and ensuring a sustainable campaign. Traditional methods for executing human Mars missions minimize or eliminate in-space assembly, which provides a narrow range of options for addressing these challenges and limits the types of missions that can be performed. This paper discusses recent work to evaluate how the inclusion of in-space assembly in space mission architectural concepts could provide novel solutions to address these challenges by increasing operational flexibility, robustness, risk reduction, crew health and safety, and sustainability. A hierarchical framework is presented to characterize assembly strategies, assembly tasks, and the required capabilities to assemble mission systems in space. The framework is used to identify general mission system design considerations and assembly system characteristics by assembly strategy. These general approaches are then applied to identify potential in-space assembly applications to address each challenge. Through this process, several focus areas were identified where applications of in-space assembly could affect multiple challenges. Each focus area was developed to identify functions, potential assembly solutions and operations, key architectural trades, and potential considerations and implications of implementation. This paper helps to identify key areas to investigate were potentially significant gains in addressing the challenges with human missions to Mars may be realized, and creates a foundation on which to further develop and analyze in-space assembly concepts and assembly-based architectures

Space Station Engineering Design Issues

Space Station Freedom topics addressed include: general design issues; issues related to utilization and operations; issues related to systems requirements and design; and management issues relevant to design

Technology Portfolio Planning by Weighted Graph Analysis of System Architectures

Many systems undergo significant architecture-level change throughout their lifecycles in order to adapt to new operating and funding contexts, to react to failed technology development, or to incorporate new technologies. In all cases early architecture selection and technology investment decisions will constrain the system to certain regions of the tradespace, which can limit the evolvability of the system and its robustness to exogenous changes. In this paper we present a method for charting development pathways within a tradespace of potential architectures, with a view to enabling robustness to technology portfolio realization and later architectural changes. The tradespace is first transformed into a weighted, directed graph of architecture nodes with connectivity determined by relationships between technology portfolios and functional architecture. The tradespace exploration problem is then restated as a shortest path problem through this graph. This method is applied to the tradespace of in-space transportation architectures for missions to Mars, finding that knowledge of pathways through the tradespace can identify negative coupling between functional architectures and particular technologies, as well as identify ways to prioritize future technology investments.Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technolog

Innovative Technologies for Global Space Exploration

Under the direction of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), Directorate Integration Office (DIO), The Tauri Group with NASA's Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) completed several studies and white papers that identify novel technologies for human exploration. These studies provide technical inputs to space exploration roadmaps, identify potential organizations for exploration partnerships, and detail crosscutting technologies that may meet some of NASA's critical needs. These studies are supported by a relational database of more than 400 externally funded technologies relevant to current exploration challenges. The identified technologies can be integrated into existing and developing roadmaps to leverage external resources, thereby reducing the cost of space exploration. This approach to identifying potential spin-in technologies and partnerships could apply to other national space programs, as well as international and multi-government activities. This paper highlights innovative technologies and potential partnerships from economic sectors that historically are less connected to space exploration. It includes breakthrough concepts that could have a significant impact on space exploration and discusses the role of breakthrough concepts in technology planning. Technologies and partnerships are from NASA's Technology Horizons and Technology Frontiers game-changing and breakthrough technology reports as well as the External Government Technology Dataset, briefly described in the paper. The paper highlights example novel technologies that could be spun-in from government and commercial sources, including virtual worlds, synthetic biology, and human augmentation. It will consider how these technologies can impact space exploration and will discuss ongoing activities for planning and preparing them

Methods and tools for the formulation, evaluation and optimization of rover mission concepts

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.Page 256 blank.Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-255).Traditionally, Mars rover missions have been conceived with a single point design approach, exploring a limited architectural trade space. The design of future missions must resolve a conflict between increasingly ambitious scientific objectives and strict technical and programmatic constraints. Therefore, there is a need for advanced mission study engineers to consider a wider range of surface exploration concepts in order to identify those with superior performance and robustness with respect to evolving mission objectives. To this end, a three stage trade space exploration approach has been developed to supplement point design development in the early conceptual phase of Mars rover missions. The product is an integrated set of theoretical methods and analytical tools which enhances the understanding and enables the rapid exploration of the rover mission trade space. In the formulation stage, the first stage of the approach, a parallel decomposition of the functional and physical aspects of Mars exploration architectures is employed to explore trade space of surface mission concepts. At each step of the decomposition, architectural alternatives are assessed with respect to stakeholder figures of merit.(cont.) The resulting concept development trees allow for a rapid assessment of a given design's strength and robustness with respect to stakeholder priorities. In the evaluation stage, the Mars Surface Exploration (MSE) rover system design tool is used to support quantitative analysis of the superior designs identified in the formulation stage. This tool, for advanced mission studies, offers unique functionality: breadth of exploration, system-level modeling fidelity and rapidity. As a demonstration of its capabilities, the tool is used to model and evaluate a multi-rover mission concept in less than two hours. In the optimization stage, two systems engineering methods are developed to optimize, with MSE, the more complex technical and physical aspects of rover mission architectures. The first method assesses the value of autonomy technologies in future missions; it is based on the principle that the monetary worth of autonomy can be evaluated by benchmarking its performance against competing solutions with known cost. The method is applied to value autonomy development for site-to-site traverse and sample approach activities.(cont.) The second method optimizes platform strategies for space exploration systems; an innovative optimization technique is developed to enumerate of all platform options. In the six rover mission campaigns analyzed, the best platform strategies are shown to generate very limited savings compared to traditional strategies. The two case studies demonstrate that the analytical capabilities of MSE combined with a theoretical structure form a valuable decision making tool for early conceptual design trade-offs.by Julien-Alexandre Lamamy.Ph.D

A framework for space systems architecting under stakeholder objectives ambiguity

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.Includes bibliographical references (p. 238-251).Matching high ambitions with scarce resources is one of the primary challenges of the aerospace industry, on par with the technical challenges of developing new technology. The challenge is further complicated in space exploration, by its own nature aimed at exploring the unknown. Stakeholder objectives are often unclear due to business cases highly exploratory in nature. Further ambiguity emerges from disagreement between stakeholders and decision-makers called to formulate scientific, technological and policy requirements for new systems. This thesis develops a structured approach to develop recommendations to system architects concerned with the design of unprecedented large aerospace infrastructures for which objectives are ambiguous or unclear. The approach is composed of three parts. The first part consists in a novel taxonomy of ambiguity in systems design that classifies ambiguities in reducible and irreducible components. Building on this taxonomy, the second part of this thesis develops a Descriptive Systems Architecting Management Framework (SA-MF) to distill canonical forms of ambiguity management from the literature in political science, finance and economics, management, and engineering design. The third part of the dissertation presents a Delphi-Based Systems Architecting Framework (DB-SAF). DB-SAF objectives are to identify sources of ambiguity in the value delivery and tradespace exploration processes, characterize and model sources of ambiguity, mitigate ambiguities through effective systems architecting strategies, integrate the analysis of upstream and downstream architecting processes, and to assess the impact of requirement ambiguities on the architectural tradespace. The proposed systems architecting approach has been applied to three case studies: the assessment of a robotic Mars Sample Return Campaign, the study of in-space transportation infrastructure for future human space exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, and the retrospective analysis of satellite constellations for commercial applications. The application of the proposed approach to three different disciplinary fields demonstrates its broad applicability for architecting complex aerospace systems. This dissertation integrates methods from systems engineering, systems architecting, multivariate statistical analysis, uncertainty modeling, economics, management science and social science research. It allows decision-makers to visualize an architectural synthesis of aerospace systems, understanding adverse impacts of ambiguity, and supporting negotiations among stakeholders for efficient compromise in systems architecting.by Alessandro Aliakbargolkar.Ph.D

A Flexible Path for Human and Robotic Space Exploration

During the summer of 2009, a flexible path scenario for human and robotic space exploration was developed that enables frequent, measured, and publicly notable human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). The formulation of this scenario was in support of the Exploration Beyond LEO subcommittee of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee that was commissioned by President Obama. Exploration mission sequences that allow humans to visit a wide number of inner solar system destinations were investigated. The scope of destinations included the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange points, near-Earth objects (NEOs), the Moon, and Mars and its moons. The missions examined assumed the use of Constellation Program elements along with existing launch vehicles and proposed augmentations. Additionally, robotic missions were envisioned as complements to human exploration through precursor missions, as crew emplaced scientific investigations, and as sample gathering assistants to the human crews. The focus of the flexible path approach was to gain ever-increasing operational experience through human exploration missions ranging from a few weeks to several years in duration, beginning in deep space beyond LEO and evolving to landings on the Moon and eventually Mars