ALBERT

Description: The project called High-Speed On-Board Data Processing for Science Instruments (HOPS) has been funded by NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) program since April, 2012. The HOPS team recently completed two flight campaigns during the summer of 2014 on two different aircrafts with two different science instruments. The first flight campaign was in July, 2014 based at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) in Hampton, VA on the NASA's HU-25 aircraft. The science instrument that flew with HOPS was Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days, and Seasons (ASCENDS) CarbonHawk Experiment Simulator (ACES) funded by NASA's Instrument Incubator Program (IIP). The second campaign was in August, 2014 based at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) in Palmdale, CA on the NASA's DC-8 aircraft. HOPS flew with the Multifunctional Fiber Laser Lidar (MFLL) instrument developed by Excelis Inc. The goal of the campaigns was to perform an end-to-end demonstration of the capabilities of the HOPS prototype system (HOPS COTS) while running the most computationally intensive part of the ASCENDS algorithm real-time on-board. The comparison of the two flight campaigns and the results of the functionality tests of the HOPS COTS are presented in this paper.

Description: This assessment was initiated by the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) after a number of recent "high profile" connector problems, the most visible and publicized of these being the problem with the Space Shuttle's Engine Cut-Off System cryogenic feed-thru connector. The NESC commissioned a review of NASA's connector selection and application processes for space flight applications, including how lessons learned and past problem records are fed back into the processes to avoid recurring issues. Team members were primarily from the various NASA Centers and included connector and electrical parts specialists. The commissioned study was conducted on spacecraft connector selection and application processes at NASA Centers. The team also compared the NASA spacecraft connector selection and application process to the military process, identified recent high profile connector failures, and analyzed problem report data looking for trends and common occurrences. The team characterized NASA's connector problem experience into a list of top connector issues based on anecdotal evidence of a system's impact and commonality between Centers. These top issues are as follows, in no particular rank order: electrically shorted, bent and/or recessed contact pins, contact pin/socket contamination leading to electrically open or intermittencies, connector plating corrosion or corrosion of connector components, low or inadequate contact pin retention forces, contact crimp failures, unmated connectors and mis-wiring due to workmanship errors during installation or maintenance, loose connectors due to manufacturing defects such as wavy washer and worn bayonet retention, damaged connector elastomeric seals and cryogenic connector failure. A survey was also conducted of SAE Connector AE-8C1 committee members regarding their experience relative to the NASA concerns on connectors. The most common responses in order of occurrence were contact retention, plating issues, worn-out or damaged coupling mechanisms, bent pins, contact crimp barrel cracking and torn seals. In addition to these common themes, responses included issues with markings, dimensional errors on the build, contact/socket damage (handling), manufacturing defects and customer misapplication and mishandling. The NESC team concluded that considering the large quantity and wide variety of connectors successfully flown on human and robotic space applications, the number of failures is quite low. However, "high profile" failures with significant cost, schedule, safety, and/or mission success impacts continue to occur. It was also concluded that connector failures occur throughout a system's life-cycle with the majority of connector issues application related. A number of recommendations were identified for improving NASA connector selection processes and overall space connector reliability and performance.

Description: Two approaches were compared to the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Avionics Integration Laboratory (CAIL) approach: the Flat-Sat and Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL). The Flat-Sat and CAIL/SAIL approaches are two different tools designed to mitigate different risks. Flat-Sat approach is designed to develop a mission concept into a flight avionics system and associated ground controller. The SAIL approach is designed to aid in the flight readiness verification of the flight avionics system. The approaches are complimentary in addressing both the system development risks and mission verification risks. The following NESC team findings were identified: The CAIL assumption is that the flight subsystems will be matured for the system level verification; The Flat-Sat and SAIL approaches are two different tools designed to mitigate different risks. The following NESC team recommendation was provided: Define, document, and manage a detailed interface between the design and development (EDL and other integration labs) to the verification laboratory (CAIL).

Description: The Space Shuttle Program (SSP) has a zero-fault-tolerant design related to an inadvertent firing of the primary reaction control jets on the Orbiter during mated operations with the International Space Station (ISS). Failure modes identified by the program as a wire-to-wire "smart" short or a Darlington transistor short resulting in a failed-on primary thruster during mated operations with ISS can drive forces that exceed the structural capabilities of the docked Shuttle/ISS structure. The assessment team delivered 17 observations, 6 findings and 15 recommendations to the Space Shuttle Program.

Description: Report describes Space Flight 80C86 microcomputer board, a configurable general-purpose microcomputer board designed specifically for near-Earth space-flight applications. Architecture of microcomputer board supports dual-bus structure. Local bus provides essential elements for stand-alone computer operations, and system bus provides for communication with subsystems unique to specific application.