August 2010 

NASA/TM-2010-216729/Volume I 

NESC-RP-08-75 

 

NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program 

Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries 

David S. Jung and Leonine S. Lee 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 

Michelle A. Manzo 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

 Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to 

the advancement of aeronautics and space science. 

The NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

 The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It 

collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program 

provides access to the NASA Aeronautics and Space 

Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical 

Report Server, thus providing one of the largest 

collections of aeronautical and space science STI in 

the world. Results are published in both non-NASA 

channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types: 

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having 

less stringent limitations on manuscript length 

and extent of graphic presentations. 

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. 

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

 Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, and 

organizing and publishing research results. 

 For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following: 

 Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443-757-5803 

 Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443-757-5802 

 Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7115 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

August 2010 

NASA/TM-2010-216729/Volume I 

NESC-RP-08-75 

 

NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program 

Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries 

David S. Jung and Leonine S. Lee 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 

Michelle A. Manzo 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

7115 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

443-757-5802 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in the report is for accurate reporting and does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

1 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

 

 

NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program

Part 3:

Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2)

Batteries

Volume I: Technical Assessment Report

February 18, 2010
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

2 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

Report Approval and Revision History 

NOTE: This document was approved at the February 18, 2010, NRB. This document was 

submitted to the NESC Director on February 23, 2010, for configuration control.

Approved

Version:

Original Signature on File 2/24/10

1.0 NESC Director Date

Version Description of Revision Office of Primary 

Responsibility Effective Date

1.0 Initial Release

Ms. Michelle A. Manzo, 

Chief, Electrochemistry 

Branch, Glenn Research 

Center

02/18/10
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

3 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

Table of Contents

Volume I: Technical Assessment Report

1.0 Notification and Authorization....................................................................................5

2.0 Signature Page...............................................................................................................6

3.0 Team List.......................................................................................................................7

3.1 Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................7

4.0 Executive Summary......................................................................................................9

4.1 Part 3: Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries............................................................10

4.1.1 Mitigation.............................................................................................................10

5.0 Assessment Plan ..........................................................................................................11

6.0 Problem Description and Analysis and Risk Assessment .......................................14

6.1 Problem Description and Analysis................................................................................14

6.2 Risk Assessment ...........................................................................................................14

7.0 Data Analysis...............................................................................................................15

7.1 Electrical Characterization and Destructive Physical Analysis—Lockheed 

Martin/COMSAT Corporation......................................................................................15

7.2 Electrical Characterization and Ni Precharge Determination—The Aerospace 

Corporation ...................................................................................................................17

7.3 Accelerated Low Earth Orbiter Cycle Testing—Naval Surface Warfare Center/Crane 

Division.........................................................................................................................18

7.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................19

8.0 Findings, Observation, and NESC Recommendations............................................19

8.1 Findings.........................................................................................................................19

8.2 Observation...................................................................................................................20

8.3 NESC Recommendations..............................................................................................20

9.0 Definition of Terms.....................................................................................................20

10.0 Acronyms List .............................................................................................................23

11.0 References....................................................................................................................25
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

4 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

List of Tables

Table 5.0-1. Summary of Articles for DPA/Characterization Studies..................................12

Table 5.0-2. Summary of Articles for Life-Test Studies.......................................................14

Table 7.1-1. Cell Performance Data......................................................................................15

Volume II: Appendices (stand-alone volume)

Appendix A. Electrical Testing and Destructive Physical Analysis of Nickel-Hydrogen Cells 

with Various Storage Histories

Appendix B. Analysis of Stored Nickel-Hydrogen Battery Cells

Appendix C. Accelerated Cycle Test Report
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

5 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

Volume I: Technical Assessment Report

1.0 Notification and Authorization 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Working Group (NAFBSWG) was chartered within the NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

(NESC) on October 5, 2006. Under this charter NAFBSWG was authorized by Mr. Ralph R. 

Roe, the NESC Director, at the NESC Review Board (NRB) to develop an annual plan to address 

critical battery-related issues for the Agency and the aerospace community. Ms. Michelle 

Manzo, Chief of the Electrochemistry Branch at Glenn Research Center (GRC), serves as Chair 

of the NAFBSWG.

The Initial Plan was presented to the NRB on January 25, 2007. It involved a series of tasks 

addressing pressing issues related to aerospace battery implementation. The Final Report for 

Year 1 (Part 1) was approved by the NRB on July 10, 2008. The Final Report for Year 1 (Parts 2 

and 3, Vols. I and II each) were approved by the NRB on February 18, 2010.

The key stakeholders for this assessment are the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 

(ESMD), Science Mission Directorate (SMD), and Space Operations Mission Directorate 

(SOMD).
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

6 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

2.0 Signature Page

Submitted by:

Team Signature Page on File – 5/24/10

Mr. David S. Jung Date Mr. Leonine S. Lee Date

Ms. Michelle A. Manzo Date

Significant Contributors: 

Dr. Hari Vaidyanathan Date Dr. Albert H. Zimmerman Date

Signatories declare the findings and observations complied in the report are factually based from 

data extracted from Program/Project documents, contractor reports, and open literature, and/or 

generated from independently conducted tests, analysis, and inspections.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

7 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

3.0 Team List

Name Discipline Organization/Location

Core Team

Michelle Manzo NESC Lead GRC

Jeff Brewer Electrical Power MSFC

Ratnakumar Bugga Electrochemistry JPL

Penni Dalton Electrochemistry GRC

Eric Darcy Electrochemistry JSC

Judith Jeevarajan Electrochemistry JSC

David Jung Electrochemistry GSFC

Leonine Lee Electrochemistry GSFC

Barbara McKissock Electrochemistry GRC

Thomas Miller Electrochemistry GRC

David Olsen Electrical Power KSC

Gopalakrishna Rao1 Electrochemistry GSFC

Concha Reid Electrochemistry GRC

Hari Vaidyanathan Electrochemistry Lockheed Martin

 Albert Zimmerman Electrochemistry The Aerospace Corporation

Pamela Throckmorton MTSO Program Analyst LaRC

Administrative Support 

Terri Derby Project Coordinator LaRC/ATK

Donna Gilchrist Planning and Control Analyst LaRC/ATK

Carolyn Snare Technical Writer LaRC/ATK

3.1 Acknowledgements

In Memoriam: This report is dedicated to the memory of our dear colleague Dr. Gopalakrishna 

(Gopal) Rao. Dr. Rao supported the Power Systems Branch at Goddard Space Flight Center 

(GSFC) for 19 years until his untimely death on May 15, 2008.

The study was directed by Dr. Rao and his assembled team consisting of:

o Lockheed Martin (LM)/Communications Satellite (COMSAT) Corporation

(LM/COMSAT) technical services (Dr. Hari Vaidyanathan) for electrical characterization 

and destructive physical analysis (DPA).

o The Aerospace Corporation (TAC) (Dr. Albert Zimmerman) for gas analysis and nickel 

precharge measurement.

 

1 Dr. Gopalakrishna Rao served as a core member of this team until his death on May 15, 2008.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

8 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

o Naval Surface Warfare Center/Crane Division (NSWC/CD) (Mr. Harold Brown) for 

accelerated low Earth orbit (LEO) cycle testing.

GSFC, under Dr. Rao‘s leadership, was the implementing organization for this task. Mr. David 

Jung, Mr. Leonine Lee, Dr. Hari Vaidyanathan, and Ms. Michelle Manzo completed this report 

after Dr. Rao‘s passing. 

The assessment team would like to specifically acknowledge contributions from the following:

o Financial/Contracting: Ms. Pam Throckmorton and Ms. Loutricia Johnson.

o The support team from Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK) at Langley Research Center 

(LaRC) provided excellent support: Ms. Terri Derby for her efforts in meeting

coordination and documentation, and Ms. Carolyn Snare and Mr. Eric Pope for technical 

editing.

o Peer Reviewers: Mr. George Dakermanji, Mr. Mitchell Davis, Mr. Steve Gentz, Mr. 

Oscar Gonzalez, Dr. Chris Iannello, Mr. Denney Keys, and Mr. Tim Trenkle.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

9 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

4.0 Executive Summary

In the summer of 2006, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) requested that all Super Problem Resolution Teams

(SPRTs) (now called Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs)) be solicited for proposals for 

discipline advancing work. Guidance for proposals included the identification of tasks which

address activities that no single program, project, or organization may be able (or reasonably 

expected) to fund, but where critical knowledge (such as fundamental understanding, a 

specification, basis for risk assessment, etc.) was lacking. The NASA Aerospace Flight Battery 

Systems Steering Committee was approached to develop a response to this request. Relevant 

battery-system issues of concern were identified and prioritized. Tasks aimed at addressing the 

most critical of these persistent, Agency-wide technical problems were identified. These tasks 

became the basis of the proposal (NESC PL-07-02/06-069-I NASA Aerospace Flight Battery 

Systems Working Group (NAFBSWG) Annual Plan) that was accepted by the NESC Review 

Board (NRB) on October 5, 2006. 

At the same time, the NAFBSWG was chartered within the NESC. The NAFBSWG was tasked

to complete these tasks, and to propose future work to address battery-related, Agency-wide 

issues. In its first year of operation, this effort addressed various aspects of the validation and 

verification (V&V) of aerospace battery systems for NASA missions. NAFBSWG members 

performed studies, discussed issues, and in many cases, tested programs to generate 

recommendations and guidelines to reduce risk associated with implementing battery technology 

in the aerospace industry. 

The reporting on these tasks has been split into three Parts, as identified below2. The subsequent 

Final Report for this assessment has also been split into three documents, one for each Part: 

1) Part 1: Generic Safety, Handling, and Qualification Guidelines for Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) 

Batteries (NESC Report Number RP-08-75)

a. Li-Ion Performance Assessment 

b. Generation of a Guidelines Document that Addresses Safety and Handling and 

Qualification of Li-Ion Batteries (a general guidelines document was developed 

that was supplemented by the following studies addressing specific Li-Ion 

batteries concerns)

i. Definition of Conditions Required for Using Pouch Cells in Aerospace 

Missions

 

2 Current order of outline and Part numbers are different from original outline in Part 1 of Final Report. Part 1 is 

now Part 2, Part 2 is now Part 3, and Part 3 is now Part 1. The current Final Report Part 1 documents (Vols. I and 

II), follow the updated order, reflected in the outline shown above.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

10 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

ii. High-Voltage Risk Assessment: Limitations of Internal Protective Devices 

in High-Voltage/High-Capacity Batteries using Li-Ion Cylindrical 

Commercial Cell

iii. Definition of Safe Limits for Charging Li-Ion Cells

c. Availability of Source Materials for Li-Ion batteries 

d. Technical Communications Related to Aerospace Batteries (NASA Battery

Workshop)

2) Part 2: Recommendations for Technical Requirements for Inclusion in Aerospace Battery 

Procurements3

3) Part 3: Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries

This document is Part 3 of the Final Report and focuses on the Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen 

(Ni-H2) Batteries. Assessment 06-069-I Final Report Part 1 is complete and has been 

catalogued as NESC Report RP-08-75. All three Parts of the Final Report collectively present 

the results of the NAFBSWG efforts that were initiated in Fiscal Year 2007.

4.1 Part 3: Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries

The majority of current NASA long life/low Earth orbit (LEO) missions (including the Hubble 

Space Telescope (HST) and the International Space Station (ISS)) uses Ni-H2 batteries as the 

spacecraft energy storage system. Unplanned launch delays often result in the use of batteries 

for NASA missions that have exceeded their recommended wet life of 3–5 years. One example 

is the HST cell/battery which had a wet life exceeding 9 years by the time of the 2009

refurbishment mission. Storage and handling of flight cells and batteries are critical. Activated 

cells subjected to storage under uncontrolled, ambient conditions for more than 6 months

observed degradation in capacity, loss of high-rate discharge capability, and second plateau 

development. The impact of extended wet life on the electrical performance of Ni-H2 batteries

and the degradation of the cell components is not well understood. 

4.1.1 Mitigation

This study researched and collected data related to Ni-H2 cells and batteries with known storage 

lives and conditions. The technical approach consisted of performing capacity checks, 

destructive physical analysis (DPA), gas analysis, Ni precharge assessment, and life-cycle testing

on the cells obtained for this assessment. Correlations between storage conditions, data 

generated from the above analyses, and capacity and performance retention contributed to 

recommendations on how to assess the quality and condition of Ni-H2 cells to determine their 

suitability for NASA missions.

 

3 Title formally identified as Recommendations for Binding Procurements.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

11 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

5.0 Assessment Plan

The NAFBSWG provided a framework to address manufacturing and performance issues related 

to flight battery systems technology and applications for NASA missions that require batteries.

This assessment supported the V&V of aerospace-battery systems for NASA missions. It 

enabled the implementation and execution of critical test programs to reduce risk by addressing 

wide-ranging technology issues. These issues affect the safety and success of future NASA 

missions.

The objectives of the NAFBSWG were: 

o Develop, maintain, and provide tools for the validation of aerospace battery technologies 

o Accelerate the readiness of technology advances and provide infusion paths for emerging 

technologies 

o Provide the database and guidelines for technology selection that can be used across 

mission directorates 

o Disseminate validation and assessment tools, along with quality assurance and 

availability information, to the NASA and aerospace battery communities 

o Provide problem-resolution expertise and capability within the Agency and the aerospace

community 

During this assessment, it was determined that the analysis could be split into three distinct 

Parts4: 

1. Part 1: Generic Safety, Handling, and Qualification Guidelines for Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) 

Batteries (NESC Report Number RP-08-75)

2. Part 2: Recommendations for Technical Requirements for Inclusion in Aerospace Battery 

Procurements5

3. Part 3: Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries

As a result, the Final Report was also divided into three separate documents, each addressing one 

of the three Parts. This document addresses Part 3.

The technical approach for this battery wet life study involved the identification of Ni-H2 cells 

with known and varied histories that could be studied to evaluate their performance as a function 

of storage time and conditions. Thirty-seven cells with wet life histories of 1–13 years were 

identified for evaluation in this study. All of the cells tested were manufactured by Eagle Picher. 

Following activation and acceptance testing, the cells were stored at 0 ± 5°C. Only one of the 

 

4 Current order of outline and Part numbers are different from original outline in Part 1 of Final Report. Part 1 is 

now Part 2, Part 2 is now Part 3, and Part 3 is now Part 1. The current Final Report Part 1 documents (Vols. I and 

II), follow the updated order, reflected in the outline shown above.

5 Title formally identified as Recommendations for Binding Procurements.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

12 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

cells, #104, had been subjected to extensive cycling. The older cells may have been subjected to 

periodic limited cycling for capacity verification but the actual histories are not known. Twentyseven of the cells were selected for electrical characterization/DPA studies at LM/COMSAT and 

TAC. These cells included ten cells from the ISS manufacturing lot, two cells from the Terra 

program, four cells (two each) from the HST/United States (US) Government (USG) programs, 

seven cells from commercial programs, three cells from the Aqua program, and one Intelsat cell

that had been cycled in a geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) regime for 9 years. An additional 

ten cells were selected for life-cycle tests at NSWC/CD, and four more cells were subjected to 

thermal imaging analyses at GSFC.

All but one of the 27 cells selected for characterization, precharge analyses, and DPA (cell #104) 

were electrically characterized at LM/COMSAT. Additional analyses conducted at

LM/COMSAT on 11 of the cells included DPA and analyses to determine: the degradation in the 

positive plates, negative plates, and separator; the initial precharge and electrolyte distribution;

and the gas analyses. Eleven companion cells with similar construction and storage histories 

were similarly evaluated at TAC. Testing at TAC included electrical characterization.

Table 5.0-1 is a listing of the articles analyzed for the DPA/characterization studies. Cells with 

capacities < 100 Ah were the 3.5-inch-diameter cells and those with capacities > 100 Ah were 

the 4.5-inch-diameter cells. The laboratory responsible for the DPA, gas analysis, and precharge 

measurements is noted for those cells that underwent these analyses. The highlighted blocks in 

the table under the  ̳Precharge‘ column are indicative of cells that underwent both electrical and 

chemical analyses of Ni precharge at TAC.

Table 5.0-1. Summary of Articles for DPA/Characterization Studies

S/N Program Capacity

Activation 

Date Gas Analysis Precharge DPA

5 Aqua 160 1997 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

15 Aqua 160 1997 TAC TAC

89 Aqua 160 1997

1038 Comm 120 1997 TAC TAC

1052 Comm 120 1997 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

1238 Comm 120 1997 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

1997 Comm 120 1999 TAC TAC

2204 Comm 120 2000

2749 Comm 120 2004 TAC TAC

2925 Comm 120 2006
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

13 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

605 HST 90 2000 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

718 HST 90 2000 TAC TAC

102 USG 90 1997 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

165 USG 90 1997 TAC TAC

224 ISS 81 1994 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

306 ISS 81 1995 TAC TAC

501 ISS 81 1996

972 ISS 81 1997

1728 ISS 81 1998 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

2170 ISS 81 2000 TAC TAC

2188 ISS 81 2001 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

2517 ISS 81 2002

2932 ISS 81 2004 TAC TAC

2933 ISS 81 2004 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

122 Terra 50 1995 COMSAT COMSAT COMSAT

262 Terra 50 1996 TAC TAC

104 GEO 

Cycled 50 ? TAC TAC

Accelerated LEO studies consisted of two, five-cell packs that were subjected to accelerated 

testing at 60-percent depth of discharge (DOD). The cells were cycled in a 90-minute LEO orbit

that consists of 30 minutes of discharge and 60 minutes of charge, at 10oC with 

voltage/temperature (VT) charge control.

The packs were tested at the Naval Systems Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC/CD)

battery test facility. The packs were designated 7604W and 7605W. A third pack, 7606W, was 

added as a replacement when Pack 7604W was damaged during the life-cycle test due to an 

equipment failure after ~1,200 cycles. Table 5.0-2 lists the cells selected for the LEO cycling 

evaluation. 

Pack 7604W contained five Eagle-Picher 90-9 cells from USG programs, activated in March 

1997. The cells were built at the Eagle-Picher/Joplin plant using positive electrode plaque (from 

the Eagle-Picher/Colorado Springs plant) that was impregnated at the Joplin plant by the CStreet (Joplin plant) process. Life-cycle testing on these cells started in August 2007.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

14 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

Pack 7605W contained five 81-Ah Eagle-Picher cells manufactured for ISS and activated on 

May 27, 1997. The initial evaluation on these cells was completed on October 26, 2007, with 

life-cycle testing starting in November 2007.

Pack 7606W contained five Eagle-Picher 90-9 cells from USG programs. Four of the cells were

activated in April 1995 and the fifth cell was activated in March 1997. Life-cycle testing on 

these cells was initiated in May 2008.

Table 5.0-2. Summary of Articles for Life-Test Studies

Pack No. Cell Identification Activation Dates

7604W Five 90-Ah Cells—USG Programs March 1997

7605W Five 81-Ah ISS Cells May 1997

7606W Five 90-Ah Cells—USG Programs Cells 1,2,3, and 5—April 1995;

Cell 4—March 1997

6.0 Problem Description and Analysis and Risk Assessment

6.1 Problem Description and Analysis

Wet life storage of cells/batteries has been the subject of intense debate ever since problems with

capacity fading and degraded voltage profiles surfaced in the cells/batteries that had been stored 

due to unscheduled launch delays. One recommendation of the early studies [refs. 2, 3, 4, 5] was 

to minimize storing cells at room temperature. The number of flight programs affected by

unplanned storage of batteries for several years, necessitated the investigation into the effects of 

extended stand or wet life.

The purpose of the present task was to study a large number of cells with varying wet-storage 

lives to better understand the effects of wet life on performance and a cell‘s ability to meet 

mission requirements. The cells were studied to determine whether or not the degradation of 

components had accelerated; to evaluate the changes in response to thermal conditions when the 

cells were charged and discharged; and to perform electrical characterization, DPA, and lifecycle testing of cells with varying wet lives. 

6.2 Risk Assessment

Ni-H2 cells are best stored discharged at 0 ± 5°C. Nickel precharge was adopted as the standard 

design practice for Ni-H2 cells in the mid 1980s. For cells of this design, capacity is best 

maintained if the cells are left in the discharged condition during the storage period. However, 

even in a discharged condition at a lowered temperature, degradation will occur. This study 

focused on determining the severity of that degradation and assessing the flightworthiness of 

cells that have been stored for extended periods. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

15 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

7.0 Data Analysis

7.1 Electrical Characterization and Destructive Physical Analysis—

Lockheed Martin/COMSAT Corporation

The effect of wet life on the performance of Ni-H2 cells was investigated through electrical 

characterization testing and DPA. The cells selected for this assessment were kept in cold 

storage (0 ± 5°C) after the initial acceptance testing. The 26 cells analyzed at LM/COMSAT

belonged to NASA/aerospace programs such as Terra, ISS, USG, commercial, and HST.

Following the activation and acceptance testing, the selected cells were stored discharged, at 

0 ± 5°C. The HST 81-Ah cells (Serial Numbers (S/Ns) 605 and 718) were stored dry for 4.5 

years prior to their activation in 2000. Some of the cells were periodically removed from storage 

for capacity evaluation/maintenance cycling and electrical characterization (consisting of 

stabilizing the cells at 0°C, 10°C, and 20°C and measuring the charge voltage profiles, discharge 

capacity, charge retention, voltage rise from the discharged condition, and cell reversal voltage). 

A summary of the test results from the performance characterization appears in Table 7.1-1. 

Table 7.1-1. Cell Performance Data

10°C CAPACITY DATA

Cell 

ID Program

Cell 

Capacity

(Ah)

Activation 

Date

Capacity 

to 1 V 

(Ah)

Capacity 

in 2nd 

plateau 

(%)

Capacity 

from 

resistor 

drain 

(Ah)

Charge

Retention 

(%)

Reversal 

Voltage

(V)

Voltage 

rise after 

1 hr (V)*

122 Terra 50 Jan-95 66.9 NA 1.1 90.3 -0.28 0.095

262 Terra 50 Jan-96 64.7 NA 1.3 90.5 -0.29 0.084

224 ISS 81 Oct-94 100.5 5.5 8 85.9 -1.43 0.134

306 ISS 81 Apr-95 104.9 5.5 2.3 87.6 -0.78 0.121

501 ISS 81 Oct-96 109 2.2 1.1 84.7 -0.37 0.165

972 ISS 81 Jul-97 103.6 NA 1.4 88.8 -0.31 0.11

1728 ISS 81 Dec-98 100.6 NA 3.5 89.8 -0.33 0.091

2170 ISS 81 Jan-00 105.1 NA 1.2 88.9 -0.32 0.086

2188 ISS 81 Oct-01 101.7 NA 1.2 88.9 -0.32 0.134

2517 ISS 81 Aug-02 100 NA 1 88.5 -0.3 0.095

2932 ISS 81 Jun-04 106 NA 1.4 88.6 -0.31 0.084

2933 ISS 81 Jun-04 105.6 NA 1.1 88.7 -0.31 0.105

102 USG 90 Mar-97 103.3 NA 0.6 87.2 -0.38 0.08

165 USG 90 Mar-97 102 NA 0.7 87.3 -0.36 0.078
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

16 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

605 HST 90 Aug-00 94.7 9.2 3.8 82.2 -1.52 0.061

718 HST 90 Aug-00 95.1 9.1 3.5 84.6 -1.51 0.08

1038 Comm 120 Apr-97 153.2 NA 1.5 87.9 -0.41 0.063

1052 Comm 120 May-97 147.9 4.3 7.2 86.7 -1.53 0.06

1238 Comm 120 Aug-97 151.2 NA 1.7 87.3 -0.42 0.089

1997 Comm 120 Aug-99 139.9 NA 19.1 85.1 -1.23 0.072

2204 Comm 120 Feb-00 146.1 NA 1.3 87.3 -0.36 0.108

2749 Comm 120 Feb-04 139.8 NA 1 87.3 -0.33 0.091

2925 Comm 120 Aug-06 143.4 NA 3.1 87.1 -0.32 0.13

5 Aqua 160 Nov-97 200.8 NA 3.1 85.5 -0.39 0.018

89 Aqua 160 Nov-97 200.8 NA 3.4 84.2 -0.4 0.016

15 Aqua 160 Nov-97 193.6 NA 1.8 87.7 -0.33 0.015

*After resistor drain to 10 mV

Eleven of the cells were subjected to additional testing and 11 companion cells were sent to TAC 

for parallel testing. The cells retained for DPA at LM/COMSAT were first subjected to gas 

analysis. In this test, the cells were in a discharged state and their fill tubes were opened to 

determine the presence of gas. Gas was not detected in any of the cells, providing a preliminary 

indication that the cells maintained their nickel precharge.

The cells were then dissected to extract the electrode stack and examine the condition of the 

components including structural features, contaminants, and workmanship. Physical 

measurements were made. The positive plates, negative plates, separators, and electrolyte were

analyzed for properties such as positive active material composition; loading and coefficient of 

utilization; positive swelling and blistering; negative plate polarization; separator absorbency;

and electrolyte concentration, content, and distribution. 

The inspection results are summarized below:

o Capacity Evaluation: Cell capacity was not impacted by long wet life up to 13 years. The 

capacity of each cell in this study was measured following storage for varying lengths of 

time. All capacities were > 19 percent higher than the rated capacity of the cells, which 

is consistent with values for new cells. 

o Charge Retention: Cells in this study retained 82–90.5 percent of the charge following a

72-hour open-circuit stand, which indicates the absence of internal shorts in the cells.

o Second Plateau: Ni-H2 cells exhibit a low-voltage plateau in their discharge curves when 

the cells have been stored for an extended period, cycled extensively, or been subjected to 

uncontrolled handling (e.g., stored partially charged, stored at temperatures > 10°C, or 

subjected to overcharge at temperatures > 10°C or at rates higher than C/10). Seven of 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

17 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

the cells evaluated in this study exhibited second plateaus showing capacity below 1 V. 

These included three ISS cells, two HST, and two 120-Ah cells from commercial 

programs with longer wet life. 

o Reversal voltage and gas analysis showed that Ni precharge was maintained for all of the 

stored cells. In general, the reversal voltage exhibited by cells with Ni precharge is 

< −0.35 V. The reversal voltage on most of the cells in this study measured −0.35 V. 

Cells with longer wet life measured voltages as follows: ISS cells (S/Ns 3-224 and 4-306)

measured −1.43 V and −0.78 V, respectively; HST cells (S/Ns 10-605 and 11-718)

measured −1.51 V; and the commercial 120-Ah cell (S/N 22-1997) measured −1.23 V. 

None of the cells had a voltage > −0.35 V, which would be indicative of H2 precharge.

o The positive plates showed various degrees of blistering. There was no clear correlation 

between the length of time the cells were stored and the size or severity of the blistering. 

o Coefficient of positive material utilization was unchanged.

o Cells stored discharged at low temperatures (0 ± 5°C) maintained the electrical 

performance and Ni precharge for as many as 13 years of wet life.

For more information on the LM/COMSAT report, see Appendix A in this Final Report, Part 3, 

Volume II.

7.2 Electrical Characterization and Ni Precharge Determination—The 

Aerospace Corporation

Ten cells that had been evaluated at LM/COMSAT were sent to TAC for electrical 

characterization, gas analysis, and Ni precharge determination. The eleventh cell evaluated at 

TAC was not electrically characterized at LM/COMSAT. This was an Intelsat cell that had been

GEO-cycled for 9 years prior to this assessment and had H2 precharge due to cycling. The 

cycled cell was added for comparison purposes. 

Electrical characterization at TAC consisted of stabilizing the cells at 0°C, 10°C, and 20°C, and 

measuring the charge voltage profiles and discharge capacity, charge retention, voltage rise from 

the discharged condition, and cell reversal voltage. Gas samples were collected from the cells 

and then quantitatively analyzed using a residual gas analyzer mass spectrometer. Six of the 

cells were selected for further analysis that included electrochemical and chemical Ni precharge

measurements. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

18 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

The summary results were:

o The capacity of the cells, stored discharged at 0 ± 5°C, was not impacted by wet life 

exposure up to 12 years.

o Reversal voltage and gas analysis showed that Ni precharge was maintained in all cells 

except in the Intelsat cell which had undergone 9 years of cycling. The Intelsat cell

contained H2 gas at 40 psia.

o There was general agreement between the Ni precharge analyses performed at 

LM/COMSAT and the two methods used at TAC. 

For more information on the results of the analyses performed at TAC, see Appendix B of this 

Report, Part 3, Volume II.

7.3 Accelerated Low Earth Orbiter Cycle Testing—Naval Surface Warfare 

Center/Crane Division

The objective of this portion of the assessment was to evaluate the long-time performance of 

wet-stored cells under accelerated cycle test conditions. Ten cells were selected for this test; five 

ISS 81-Ah cells and five USG 90-Ah cells were assembled into two packs (see Table 5.0-2 for 

pack descriptions). All cells had been stored discharged at 0 ± 5°C and had minimal cycling 

beyond the Acceptance Test Procedure cycles. Electrical characterization data were comparable

to the LM/COMSAT and TAC results. The LEO test conditions were 60-percent DOD, 10oC, in 

a simulated 90-minute orbit with 30 minutes for discharge and 60 minutes for charge, and VTcompensated charge control with taper. As of November 2009, Pack 7605W (containing the ISS 

cells) had completed ~12,000 nominal cycles and had started to show signs of decay after 11,500 

cycles. The USG cell pack (7606W) had completed ~9,000 cycles. Pack 7606W experienced 

low end-of-discharge voltages and cell divergence at 7,200 cycles. The DOD was reduced from 

60- to 15-percent DOD, a level more representative of an HST profile. 

There were limited data to determine if wet life had affected cycle performance of these cell 

packs. A NASA Battery Workshop Presentation [ref. 6] from 2008 reported on the cycle 

performance of similar vintage HST cells with wet lives that varied between 1 and 6 years. 

Packs cycled at 60-percent DOD demonstrated between 7,000 and 17,500 cycles to the 1.0-volt 

cutoff. The packs in this study had longer wet lives and cycled > 7,000 cycles before reaching 

the 1.0-volt cutoff. With the performance demonstrated to date there are no clear indications of 

issues resulting from the prolonged storage. These test packs generally exhibit nominal 

performance comparable with packs that have not been stored for extended times. However, the

tests are still ongoing and there is no means of determining the long-time, in-orbit performance 

effects of prolonged storage without testing for five years or to failure, whichever comes first. 

For more information on these tests, see the NSWC/CD Test report, Appendix C of this Final 

Report, Part 3, Volume II.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

19 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

7.4 Summary

Twenty-six cells which had been stored between 2 and 13 years, under controlled conditions 

(discharged and at temperatures < 10°C), were evaluated at LM/COMSAT and TAC. Their

electrical characteristics were generally indicative of healthy cells, with all cells exhibiting 

measured capacities in excess of their rated capacity. Electrical characterization, gas analysis, 

and precharge determination indicated all the cells, except the cycled Intelsat cell (with H2

presence due to cycling), maintained Ni precharge. However several of the cells did show signs 

of degradation. Six cells showed a second plateau and six of the cells stored for longer (or older)

than 5 years showed more than the normal negative (< −0.35 V) values for the reversal potential. 

The destructive physical analysis showed no abnormalities at the stack level. Electrolyte 

distribution was normal. The positive plates showed blisters but the number and size of blisters 

did not appear to be a function of the length of the wet life. 

The accelerated LEO testing of 10-year ISS and USG cells, as of November 2009, had

completed > 8,500 nominal cycles. 

In summary, a Ni-H2 cell/battery with up to 13 years of wet life, stored in a discharged condition 

at cold temperatures (0 ± 5°C), can retain Ni precharge, maintain acceptable capacities, and cycle 

for > 7,000 cycles at 60-percent DOD. 

8.0 Findings, Observation, and NESC Recommendations

8.1 Findings

The following Findings related to wet life were identified:

F-1. Ni-H2 cell capacity, charge retention, and voltage rise were not influenced by storage 

periods up to 13 years after activation when cells were stored uncycled, in a discharged

condition, at 0 ± 5°C.

F-2. Second voltage plateau occurred in cells with longer wet life.

F-3. There was no apparent correlation between the number and size of blisters noted on the 

positive plates and the length of time the cells were stored.

F-4. Coefficient of positive material utilization was unchanged as a function of wet life,

indicating that positive active material maintains its activity even with extended storage 

periods.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

20 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

F-5. Electrical signatures from the reversal test were the most definitive in detecting the type 

of precharge in the cells. Cells with reversal voltages < −0.35 V consistently exhibited 

Ni precharge.

F-6. Open-circuit voltage recovery provided an indication of the presence of H2 precharge. In 

general, higher recovery voltages are associated with higher precharge levels. 

F-7. The stored, uncycled cells maintained some level of Ni precharge, but the levels were 

significantly lower than those usually seen in new cells. Typical values for new cells are 

18–25 percent; the stored, uncycled cells had levels as low as 4 percent.

8.2 Observation

The following Observation related to wet life was identified:

O-1. The long-term effects of extended storage on cycle performance in mission conditions 

have not been fully evaluated.

8.3 NESC Recommendations

The following NESC Recommendations were identified and directed toward the key 

stakeholders unless otherwise identified:

R-1. Representative cells from lots that have been stored for > 6 years should undergo 

characterization and precharge testing to validate characteristics that demonstrate 

acceptable performance. (F-1, F-2, F-5, F-6, F-7)

R-2. Representative cells from lots that have been stored for > 8 years should undergo 

accelerated LEO testing to validate characteristics that demonstrate acceptable 

performance. (O-1)

R-3. An analysis of the relationship between periodic cycling and the maintenance of Ni 

precharge is recommended to fully understand these effects. (F-1, F-2, F-5, F-6)

9.0 Definition of Terms

Accelerated Cycle Test A cell or battery is tested by being charged and discharged under 

conditions more stringent than those expected in its proposed 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

21 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

application in order to produce premature degradation and estimate 

its normal operating life.

Acceptance A determination that the product meets the design specifications.

Battery One or more electrochemical cells that are electrically connected.

Capacity The number of ampere-hours that can be delivered by a fully 

charged cell or battery under the specified conditions.

Cell A single-unit device within one cell case that transforms chemical 

energy into electrical energy at characteristic voltages when 

discharged.

Charge Retention The fraction of a cell‘s or battery‘s full capacity under specified 

discharge conditions that is still available after it has been stored.

Cold Storage For batteries that are not in use, long-term storage during which the 

temperature and humidity environments are controlled and 

temperature is below ambient temperature.

Cycle A discharge (capacity of the battery is used) and subsequent 

recharge (capacity of the battery is restored) of a rechargeable 

battery.

Depth of Discharge The ratio of the capacity removed from a cell or battery under 

specified conditions to its rated capacity.

Destructive Physical 

Analysis The process of opening up a cell, removing material from it, and 

analyzing the changes that have occurred.

Electrode The location where the electrochemical reactions occur.

Electrolyte The medium which transports ions between electrodes.

Energy Launch, transfer orbit, and on-orbit battery energy and energy 

reserve requirements are flowed down from the Electrical Power 

Subsystem specification for the entire mission life. Battery energy 

is equal to the integral of the product of discharge current and 

voltage, where Id, a positive value, is the discharge current, and Vd, 

a positive value, is the discharge voltage. The limits of integration 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

22 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

are from start of discharge to either the minimum power subsystem 

battery voltage limit, or when the first cell reaches the lower cell 

voltage limit, or when a defined time duration is reached. This is a 

point-in-time energy value that is measured at a defined charge 

voltage-current profile, discharge load profile, and temperature 

profile. Battery discharge can be accomplished with constant 

current discharge; however, constant power discharge is the 

preferred method if it more closely simulates spacecraft power. 

This is also sometimes called Watt-hour capacity.

Battery Energy (Wh) = IdVddt

Energy Reserve Total amount of usable energy in Watt-hours remaining in a 

battery, which has been discharged to the maximum-allowed DOD

under normal operating conditions to either the minimum power 

subsystem battery voltage limit, or when the first cell reaches the 

lower cell voltage limit.

Finding A conclusion based on facts established by the investigating 

authority. 

Lessons Learned Knowledge or understanding gained by experience. The 

experience may be positive, as in a successful test or mission, or 

negative, as in a mishap or failure. A lesson must be significant in 

that it has real or assumed impact on operations; valid in that it is 

factually and technically correct; and applicable in that it identifies 

a specific design, process, or decision that reduces or limits the 

potential for failures and mishaps, or reinforces a positive result. 

Observation A factor, event, or circumstance identified during the assessment 

that did not contribute to the problem, but if left uncorrected has 

the potential to cause a mishap, injury, or increase the severity 

should a mishap occur. Alternatively, an observation could be a 

positive acknowledgement of a 

Center/Program/Project/Organization‘s operational structure, tools, 

and/or support provided.

Polarization The change of the potential of a cell or electrode from its 

equilibrium due to the flow of current, which typically results in 

higher an increase in resistance and degradation of performance.

Problem The subject of the independent technical assessment/inspection.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

23 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

Proximate Cause The event(s) that occurred, including any condition(s) that existed 

immediately before the undesired outcome, directly resulted in its 

occurrence and, if eliminated or modified, would have prevented 

the undesired outcome.

Qualification The process of verifying that the product can meet the design 

specifications within the mission operating conditions.

Rated or Nameplate

Capacity Measured in units of Ampere-hours or Watt-hours. The rated 

battery capacity is provided by the battery or cell vendor and is 

typically less than the actual capacity. Manufacturers usually 

provide excess capacity over the rated value to compensate for 

variability within the manufacturing lot and capacity losses 

expected over the life of the battery.

Recommendation An action identified by the assessment team to correct a root cause 

or deficiency identified during the investigation. The 

recommendations may be used by the responsible 

Center/Program/Project/Organization in the preparation of a 

corrective action plan. 

Reversal The changing of the normal polarity of a cell, typically due to 

overdischarge of the cell.

Verification The process of checking that the product meets the specified 

requirements.

Wet Life The maximum period during which a battery can deliver a 

specified capacity after activation.

10.0 Acronyms List

AL Alabama

ATK Alliant Techsystems Inc.

CA California

COMSAT Communications Satellite

DOD Depth-of-Discharge

DPA Destructive Physical Analysis

ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

GA Georgia
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

24 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

GEO Geosynchronous-Earth-Orbit

GRC Glenn Research Center

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center

HST Hubble Space Telescope

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IECEC Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference

ISS International Space Station

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LaRC Langley Research Center

LEO Low Earth Orbit

Li-Ion Lithium-Ion

LM Lockheed Martin

LM/COMSATLockheed Martin/Communications Satellite Corporation

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

MTSO Management and Technical Support Office

NAFBSWG NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Systems Working Group

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESC NASA Engineering and Safety Center

Ni-H2 Nickel Hydrogen 

NRB NESC Review Board

NSWC/CD Naval Surface Warfare Center/Crane Division

SMD Science Mission Directorate

S/N Serial Number

SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate

SPRT Super Problem Resolution Team (now called Technical Discipline Team (TDT))

TAC The Aerospace Corporation

TDT Technical Discipline Team

US United States

USG United States Government

V&V Validation and Verification

VT Voltage/Temperature
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report 

Document #:

NESC-RP06-069

Version:

1.0

Title:

Aerospace Flight Battery Systems

Page #:

25 of 25

NESC Request No.: 06-069-I (Part 3)

11.0 References

1. Hari Vaidyanathan and Gopalakrishna Rao, ―Effect of Handling, Storage and Cycling on NiH2 Cells: Second Plateau Phenomenon,‖ Proceedings, NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop, 

Huntsville, AL, November 2000.

2. H. Vaidyanathan, K.B. Robbins, R. Cool, and G. Rao, ―Effect of Storage on Performance of 

Super Nickel-Cadmium Cells,‖ Proceedings IEEE98TH8299, The Thirteenth Annual Battery 

Conference, California State University, Long Beach, CA, January 14, 1998, p. 97.

3. Hari Vaidyanathan, ―Distinctive Features of Storage-Induced Capacity Loss in NickelHydrogen Cells,‖ Proceedings of the 28th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering 

Conference (IECEC), Atlanta, GA, August 8–13, 1993, Vol. 1, pp. 1.131–1.136.

4. Hari Vaidyanathan, et al., ―Long-Term Storage of Nickel-Hydrogen Cells,‖ Journal of Power 

Sources, Vol. 22, Issues 3–4, March–April 1988, pp. 221–228.

5. A.H. Zimmerman, ―Storage of Activated Nickel hydrogen cells and batteries,‖ Aerospace 

Report, N. TR-2002(8555)-9, October 2002. 

6. Hollandsworth, Roger, ―HST SM4 Cell Verification Studies,‖ Proceedings, 2008 NASA 

Aerospace Battery Workshop, Huntsville, AL, November 2008.

Volume II: Appendices (stand-alone volume)

Appendix A. Electrical Testing and Destructive Physical Analysis of Nickel-Hydrogen Cells 

with Various Storage Histories

Appendix B. Analysis of Stored Nickel-Hydrogen Battery Cells

Appendix C. Accelerated Cycle Test Report
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program

Wet Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Jung, David S.; Lee, Leonine S.; Manzo, Michelle A.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-19892 NESC-RP-08-75

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 16-Space Transportation and Safety

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

This NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Systems Working Group was chartered within the NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

(NESC). The Battery Working Group was tasked to complete tasks and to propose proactive work to address battery related, 

agency-wide issues on an annual basis. In its first year of operation, this proactive program addressed various aspects of the 

validation and verification of aerospace battery systems for NASA missions. Studies were performed, issues were discussed 

and in many cases, test programs were executed to generate recommendations and guidelines to reduce risk associated with 

various aspects of implementing battery technology in the aerospace industry. This document contains Part 3 - Volume I: Wet 

Life of Nickel-Hydrogen (Ni-H2) Batteries of the program's operations.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Aerospace; Battery; Hubble Space Telescope; Nickel Hydrogen; Wet Life

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

30

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

January 2007 - February 2010

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

869021.03.07.01.09

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2010-216729/Volume I

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 08 - 2010