20 Years of

Engineering Excellence

www.nasa.gov

Annual Report of NESC Technical Activities

NASA Engineering & Safety Center

TECHNICAL

UPDATE
NESC Members

May 2023

TABLE OF 

CONTENTS

3

NESC 

OVERVIEW

The organization performs 

value-added independent 

testing, analysis, and 

assessments of NASA's 

high-risk projects to ensure 

safety and mission success.

4-13

REFLECTING 

ON 20 YEARS

 4-5 The Next Accident: 

How Do We Prevent It?

 6-7 Looking Back, Moving 

Forward: Interview 

with NESC Director

 8-9 Most Impactful 

NESC Assessments

10-13 NESC Assessment 

Timeline

32-43

NESC AT THE 

CENTERS

Meet the engineers and 

scientists who lend their 

expertise to NESC technical 

activities. 

44-47

NESC 

KNOWLEDGE 

PRODUCTS 

The NESC is engaged 

in activities to identify, 

retain, and share critical 

knowledge. To disseminate 

that knowledge, the NESC 

develops a wide variety of 

knowledge products. 

48-61

DISCIPLINE 

FOCUS 

Discipline perspectives 

related to NESC technical 

activities.

62-65

INNOVATIVE 

TECHNIQUES

New and creative 

engineering approaches 

developed during NESC 

technical activities.

The 20 images 

represent disciplines 

led by NASA 

Technical Fellows. 

Disciplines listed in 

chart on page 3.

ON 

THE

COVER

66-67

NESC LEADERSHIP 

& ALUMNI 

68-69

NESC HONOR 

AWARDS

70-72

PUBLICATIONS

Based on NESC activities

Except where noted, all photographs and illustrations are NASA images.

14-31

ASSESSMENTS 

& SUPPORT 

ACTIVITIES

Technical assessments and 

support activities conducted 

by the NESC in FY23.

New and creative engineering 

approaches developed during 

NESC technical activities.

INNOVATIVE

TECHNIQUES

Documented results of 

independent testing and 

analysis delivered to the 

requesting stakeholders.

ENGINEERING

REPORTS

Critical engineering 

information or best practices 

captured in a one-page, 

quick-read format.

TECHNICAL

BULLETINS

Citations for publications 

summarizing NESC technical 

activities for discipline-specific 

audiences.

JOURNAL 

ARTICLES & 

CONFERENCE 

PAPERS

LESSONS 

LEARNED

Useful knowledge gained 

from experience.

• Lessons Learned 

 Information System (LLIS)

• NESC Academy

An online community where 

NASA employees can 

collaborate with peers and 

discipline experts.

NASA 

ENGINEERING

NETWORK

Annual reports of NESC

technical activities.

TECHNICAL

UPDATES
The NESC’s mission is to perform value-added independent testing, analysis, 

and assessments of NASA’s high-risk projects to ensure safety and mission success. 

The NESC also engages proactively to help NASA avoid future problems.

Independence & Objectivity

The NESC performs technical assessments and 

provides recommendations based on independent 

testing and analysis. Funding and reporting independent 

of NASA's programs and projects ensures objective 

technical results for NASA.

Engineering Excellence

The NESC draws on the knowledge base of technical 

experts from within NASA, industry, academia, and 

other government agencies. Collaborating with leading 

engineers allows the NESC to consistently optimize 

processes, strengthen technical capabilities, and 

broaden perspectives. This practice further reinforces 

the NESC’s commitment to engineering excellence.

A Unique Resource

The NESC is an Agency-wide resource that provides 

a forum for reporting technical issues and contributing 

alternative viewpoints to resolve NASA’s highest-risk 

challenges. Multidisciplinary teams of ready experts 

provide distinctively unbiased technical assessments to 

enable more informed decisions.

NASA 

ENGINEERING 

& SAFETY 

CENTER NASA Engineering & Safety Center Core Team

 Management and 

Technical Leadership Technical Workforce

NRB

NESC Review Board

NASA Office of the Chief Engineer

Technical Discipline Teams (TDT)

• Aerosciences

• Avionics

• Cryogenics

• Electrical Power

• ECLS

• Flight Mechanics

• GNC

Approximately 1,100 TDT Members Available

NASA

73% Consultants

1% 

Other Gov.

1% 

Academia

4% 

Industry

21% 

External Partners

• Sensors & Instrumentation

• Software

• Space Environments

• Structures

• Systems Engineering

• Thermal Control & 

 Protection

• Human Factors

• Loads & Dynamics

• Materials

• Mechanical Systems

• Nondestructive Evaluation

• Nuclear Power & Propulsion

• Propulsion

PE

NESC

Principal

Engineers

Office of

the Director

NIO

NESC

Integration

Office

MTSO

Management

and Technical

Support Office

NASA Technical

Fellows

NCE

NESC

Chief

Engineers

NESC Overview 3

NASA emerged from the shadow of the Columbia accident 

with a new organization, the NESC, to help create safer and 

more resilient missions by using the talent and resources of 

the nation’s engineering community.

Reflecting on 20 Years

"In my 22 years at NASA and 35-plus years in the industry, I’ve had immeasurable opportunities to witness 

and be a part of the amazing work this Agency does. And when I stepped into the role of NASA Chief 

Engineer earlier this year, I took the time to reflect on the countless people I’ve had the good fortune to 

meet and the many programs and missions I’ve been lucky enough to take part in and see through to their 

successful culminations. Along this incredible journey, I served as both an NESC Chief Engineer and NASA 

Technical Fellow and saw firsthand how this organization has helped transform NASA’s safety culture, 

foster open communications, and create a One-NASA mindset. I came to appreciate the vast extent and 

depth of skills at every center that come together to resolve the many challenges of spaceflight. It’s why, 

after 20 years, the NESC is still going strong, fielding requests, and giving programs unique perspectives 

and solutions to their technical questions. Their recent work with the Commercial Crew Program, Artemis I 

post-flight assessments, support of robotic missions, and efforts to aid our Moon-to-Mars 

exploration activities have been important to the success NASA has achieved in this 

new Artemis era. As I oversee the Agency’s portfolio of engineering work, I will rely on 

the NESC for the insight and technical excellence they bring to the table and, more 

importantly, their ability to delve into a problem, find the potential risks that are such 

a fundamental part of space travel, and help put us on a path to mitigating them."

Joseph W. Pellicciotti, NASA Chief Engineer

"NASA had another amazing and inspiring year in 2023. With the launch of new satellites, the development 

of new technologies, and the important science being performed daily by our employees, NASA is giving the 

world access to data about our planet and the universe that is unparalleled. The selection of our astronauts 

for the next Artemis mission brings us another step closer to returning to the Moon, but there’s still much for 

us to do. We are gathering data from Artemis I to ensure that when we fly crew on Artemis II, we do it in the 

safest way possible. Of all the challenging things the Agency does, the most important is taking care of our 

people. When we launch missions and humans to space, we make countless, critical decisions to ensure 

the safety of our crews and the success of our missions. The work the NESC has done 

over the last 20 years has helped us make those tough decisions and remain vigilant in 

understanding the risks inherent to spaceflight and doing our best to ensure mission 

success and the safe return of our crews. The hundreds of assessment teams the 

NESC has assembled in the last two decades have addressed NASA’s most demanding 

technical questions and concerns, leaving lasting impacts on NASA’s safety culture, 

and aiding the Agency in protecting its most important asset—our amazing workforce." 

Robert D. Cabana, NASA Associate Administrator

2 Messages from NASA Leadership

Messages from NASA Leadership
“Having friends and colleagues who were on 

the crews of both Challenger and Columbia 

certainly focuses you—that you need to 

do everything you can do to make sure 

spaceflight is as safe as it can be. Everyone 

who went through those experiences is 

changed in some way, and our whole 

organization was created to help prevent 

these things from ever happening again.”

- Ralph R. Roe, Jr. 

 Former NESC Director (2003-14)

In 2003, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board specified a need for a technically strong, 

program-independent resource to provide an alternative perspective on difficult technical issues 

and provide independent technical investigations for NASA programs and projects. In response, 

the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was created. Twenty years later, the NESC 

continues its mission. The NESC also engages proactively to help NASA avoid future problems.

I recently watched NESC Deputy Director Mike Kirsch stand 

before a roomful of engineers at the Langley Research Center 

and tell them that with every passing day, NASA breaks a 

record: the longest stretch without a major accident in the 

nation’s human spaceflight program since the Space Shuttle 

Columbia disintegrated during reentry on February 1, 2003. 

NASA’s challenge, he told them, was to make sure the record 

keeps being broken. 

Mike’s sobering message set the perfect tone for my presentation of "Principles of Success in Spaceflight," the class I created with Victoria Kohl on the human behavior elements of 

success and failure in spaceflight projects. With the NESC’s 

support, I have given it at every NASA center, and it’s always 

a rewarding experience. You can’t spend the day with a group 

of NASA engineers and not experience their keen intelligence, 

passion, and commitment to excellence. As I lead them through 

case studies of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967, the Challenger accident 

in 1986, and Columbia, I tell them that no matter how good 

we are at the “rocket science,” we invite failure if we don’t pay 

attention to the attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions we bring to 

the work—in short, our mindset. 

Before the Apollo fire, there was a widespread belief that because Mercury and Gemini had used pure oxygen with no 

fires, there wouldn’t be any in Apollo. And the Apollo spacecraft program manager missed opportunities to prevent the 

accident due to his belief that the fire hazard created by combining pure oxygen with exposed wiring and flammable materials was not a “real” problem, one that warranted slowing 

the train barreling down the tracks to meet John F. Kennedy’s 

end-of-the-decade deadline for a lunar landing. 

When I talk about the Challenger accident, I caution that it’s 

essential to pay attention to the stories we tell ourselves. NASA 

had promised itself and Congress that the Shuttle would make 

spaceflight routine and affordable, a goal that required unrealistically high flight rates. Mounting schedule pressure in the 

lead-up to Challenger skewed decision makers’ perceptions of 

the SRB field joint anomalies that had occurred intermittently 

on previous launches and were not well understood. In the 

Columbia discussion, I recount the shocking swiftness with 

which NASA lost the lessons of Challenger and paved the way 

for another accident with renewed schedule pressure and a 

belief that external tank foam shedding was “not a safety of 

flight issue.” Accidents jolt us into new awareness, but Columbia 

is a painful reminder that awareness has a shelf life. 

What will it take to keep breaking the record that Mike spoke 

about? I believe we must talk to each other regularly about the 

behaviors that either invite success or lead us down the slippery slope to failure. Are we in the grip of what I call the "reality 

distortion field," created by cost, schedule, and/or political pressure, that clouds our perceptions of risk? Are we unconsciously 

indulging in hard-wired “us vs. them” tribal behaviors that cut 

us off from the diverse “spotlights of awareness” we must have 

to navigate the unforgiving demands of human spaceflight? 

Are we telling ourselves a story that, under clear-eyed scrutiny, 

doesn’t hold up? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves again and again. The answers are critical. 

The Next Accident:

How Do We Prevent It?

By Andrew Chaikin, Independent Space Historian and member of the NESC Human Factors Technical Discipline Team

A section of the fuselage recovered from Space Shuttle Challenger, left, and the flight deck windows recovered

from Space Shuttle Columbia at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida.

Reflecting on 20 Years 5
Reflecting on 20 Years...

6 Reflecting on 20 Years

Upon reaching its 20th year of operations 

at NASA in 2023, the NESC is busier 

than it has ever been. With a portfolio 

of more than 160 in-progress requests 

from Agency programs, NESC Director 

Tim Wilson spends much of his day 

prioritizing, allocating funds from the 

organization’s fixed budget to NASA’s 

most pressing issues. Of late, the NESC 

has focused on priority-one requests—

projects in the flight phase—such as the 

Artemis missions and those of NASA’s 

commercial partners, while lower priority 

requests like discipline-advancing activities have been placed on hold until the 

next fiscal year. For Mr. Wilson, each day 

is a new shuffle of requests, funding, and 

resources. 

When he joined the newly formed NESC 

in 2003, Mr. Wilson could not have predicted the impact the organization would 

have on Agency operations. “To be honest, I didn't really think we’d still be here,” 

he said. “The NESC was an experiment.” 

Initiated by the results of the Columbia 

accident investigation, the idea behind 

it was that NASA programs would benefit from expert, unbiased perspectives 

on its tough engineering problems. The 

vision for the organization was straightforward, but the execution was far more 

challenging than Mr. Wilson expected. 

“When we started those first assessments with the CALIPSO satellite and 

Shuttle, we had to elbow our way to the 

table to be accepted. We were new, and 

no one knew who we were or what we 

were doing. Back then, programs were 

worried that we might slow them down or 

cause problems.”

LOOKING 

BACK, 

MOVING 

FOWARD

Interview 

with NESC 

Director

Tim Wilson

Though Agency leadership had given 

them the green light, it was up to Mr. 

Wilson and the NESC’s early members 

to prove they deserved a seat at those 

tables. “You have to produce some results before folks respect you,” he said. 

It was hard won, but with each assessment, the NESC gained that respect by 

bringing ideas and solutions programs 

could use. 

Two decades in, Mr. Wilson is happy to 

say the NESC is now invited to the table. 

“That’s part of why demand has grown 

as much as it has. Our team is respected, and we’re asked to participate. We’ve 

gone from being an unknown to an organization they reach out to as a trusted 

partner: someone who can help them be 

successful, bring expertise or resources 

they don't have, or sometimes just bring 

another perspective to break a logjam 

and help them get things done. That’s the 

shift I have seen over the years. It's been 

really encouraging to see it.” 

The NESC portfolio of work also has 

shifted from the early, hectic pace of 

Shuttle assessments where quick, realtime solutions were needed. In the years 

following the Shuttle’s retirement, the 

NESC had the luxury of time to invest in 

longer-term projects like the design and 

construction of a composite crew module 

that would be leveraged in the development of Orion and commercial spacecraft. Today, the pace has ramped up 

again as Artemis, Dragon, and Starliner 

head to the Moon and ISS. 

“These are real-time activities where you 

have to engage immediately and be able 

to add value out of the chute. You don't 

have time to come up to speed on the 

system,” Mr. Wilson said. “We learned 

with Shuttle that it was important to move 

quickly and be pre-positioned to help.”

Over the years the NESC has cultivated 

good relationships with programs—

keeping people plugged in to their dayto-day activities so that when problems 

arose, they could engage right away. 

“The lesson we learned is you need 

people doing routine work for those 

programs all along so that they understand the subsystems and hardware 

and they're ready to engage when 

there's a real-time problem.” It’s been a 

balancing act to keep close ties yet remain independent, but Mr. Wilson said 

the NESC has found an equilibrium. 

Independent yet parallel modeling and 

simulation (M&S) is a good example of 

finding that balance, he said. “We build 

our own M&S tools in parallel with the 

programs’ tools to give them a second 

set of eyes to a problem.” Since 2012, 

for example, NESC-built M&S trajectory 

tools have help mitigate risks for Artemis missions’ ascent to orbit, and entry, 

descent, and landing simulations for 

CCP provider vehicles. 

With capped budgets, the NESC must 

adjust its scope continually to keep 

up with the increasing tempo of space 

exploration. For now, that means focusing on what is most critical and has the 

highest payback. “We’ll continue to focus 

on the heavy hitters, the programs that 

are flying and have a critical immediate 

need. There are a lot of those, and the 

pace is ramping up.” 

As for the future, Mr. Wilson said, “I have 

not seen very many Agency initiatives 

persist the way the NESC has, so I'm 

thrilled that we have met the needs that 

we were placed here to meet and that 

we continue to deliver value, because I 

think that’s what has kept us rolling and 

growing over all of this time.” 

"I have not seen very many Agency initiatives 

persist the way the NESC has, so I'm thrilled that 

we have met the needs that we were placed here 

to meet and that we continue to deliver value, 

because I think that’s what has kept us rolling 

and growing over all of this time." 

Michael T. Kirsch, NESC Deputy Director Mary Elizabeth Wusk, NESC Integration Office Manager

"Every day is a new record for this Agency. Every day, NASA sets a new record for number of days in space without a loss-of-crew 

accident. We are at 20 years and counting, every day. Formed after the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, the NESC provides 

Agency programs and projects access to subject matter expertise that can weigh in on their toughest technical challenges. With 

a virtual rolodex of on-call experts from all NASA missions, centers, contractors, other government agencies including DoD and 

DoE, and academia, the NESC can provide ready access to experts and facilities in hours or days as opposed to months. This agile 

approach has been critical to providing results to over 1,200 technical assessments spanning the entire NASA mission 

portfolio. Our mission is to help our programs ensure we are flying as safely and robustly as we can and continue 

to build that record. I have had the fortune of being a part of this team since 2004. To participate in the evolution 

of the NESC supporting Space Shuttle return to flight, successfully enabling commercial access to low Earth 

orbit, NASA Artemis to return to the Moon, and first ever science and aeronautical achievements has been more 

rewarding than I could have ever imagined."

"NASA’s mission portfolio has reached unprecedented numbers with government and commercial human spaceflight endeavors, 

while at the same time scientific exploration of our universe flourishes and aeronautical advancements drive innovative solutions for 

the next generation of flight vehicles. As we continue to make these technological breakthroughs, engaging NASA’s resources in the 

most effective manner to ensure safe and efficient aeronautical and space travel is paramount. What inspires me every day about 

working with the NESC is its unique ability to engage NASA’s entire workforce to solve technical issues. The NESC 

can quickly respond through pre-established relationships with Agency and industry resources, to implement an 

agile approach to learn from our past while continuously growing from the complex challenges we face today and, 

most importantly, its commitment to grow the next generation."

Reflecting on 20 Years 7
2018-2021

Pilot Breathing

Assessment

When the U.S. Navy was experiencing an increase in pilot 

physiological episodes across their F/A-18 fleet that was leading to mission aborts, “No one really understood what was going on or why,” said Mr. Wilson. “It was a difficult problem, and 

our NESC team was able to come up with compelling answers.” 

Over the NESC’s three-year study, its Pilot Breathing Assessment (PBA) team designed novel instrumentation to measure 

pilot physiological states and interactions with aircraft life 

support systems. NASA test pilots flew instrumented NASA 

F/A-18 and F-15 aircraft through pre-specified flight profiles 

while wearing specialized breathing equipment augmented with an advanced sensor system. Aligned data streams 

identified pilot/aircraft interactions with the potential for negative cognitive and physiological impact. After more than 100 

scripted flights and 250 million data points, the PBA team 

determined that breathing pressures and airflows were often 

mismatched, increasing a pilot’s efforts to maintain sufficient 

ventilation. The PBA team’s work has benefited the field of 

aviation and the advancement of human system integration in 

modern aircraft and has direct application for NASA vehicles 

such as the T-38, F-15, X-59, and the ISS.

2020-2023

Unconservatism of LEFM 

Analysis Post Autofrettage

The NESC has invested significant time and resources to understanding the complex behavior of composite overwrapped 

pressure vessels (COPV), which are used extensively in spaceflight. Most recently, an NESC team found there was a lack of 

conservatism in the damage tolerance analyses conducted on 

COPV liners using linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), 

particularly in understanding the influence of autofrettage (AF). 

During AF, a COPV is subjected to high pressures to compress the inner surfaces, making them less susceptible to 

operational stresses later. In verifying damage tolerance life, 

the team found that separating the AF cycle from subsequent 

elastic cycles in LEFM analysis led to unconservative life predictions. Cracks remained open during compressive cycles 

after AF and allowed for a larger stress range to contribute to 

crack growth in each subsequent elastic cycle. The team provided corrections to NASGRO (programs that analyze fracture and fatigue crack growth) to make predictions less unconservative. “I’m convinced that someday crew will fly, come 

home, disembark, and never know that it was the improvements to those analytical tools made by this NESC team that 

kept them safe. I think it's going to have wide-ranging impact.”

8 Reflecting on 20 Years Reflecting on 20 Years 9

MOST

IMPACTFUL

NESC

ASSESSMENTS

After reflecting on the more than 1,200 

assessments completed by the NESC over 

the last 20 years, Director Tim Wilson 

selected these assessments as his top three. 

They were selected because they would 

likely have the greatest and most lasting 

impact on human life and the furtherance 

of the NESC mission. He shared why 

their effects were so far-reaching. 

2013-2019

Assessing Risks of

Frangible Joint Designs

At the request of the Commercial Crew Program, the NESC 

took on an empirical test program of frangible joints (FJ) to 

provide confidence in their use for human spaceflight. “Many 

programs use these joints, so understanding the margins and 

what drives their designs has helped us keep flight crews safe 

and make missions successful,” said Mr. Wilson.

The joints provide a debris-free separation of launch vehicle 

stages and payload fairings. To determine the effects various 

design parameters and environmental factors have on 

jointseparation capability, the NESC conducted more than 140 

tests on a variety of designs and generated more than 100 

million lines of data that were used to anchor models, develop 

design sensitivities, and make reliability estimates. Their 

comprehensive work was foundational to later assessments 

for the Space Launch System, Orion, and Launch Services 

Programs. The NESC also started the FJ Working Group, 

which serves as the Agency's technical community of practice. 

It ensures programs understand the risks associated with their 

use and is proactive in ensuring NASA is implementing safe 

and reliable FJ technologies.
May 2006

CEV LAS 

Aerodynamic

Evaluation 

Computational fluid dynamics analyses 

and wind tunnel testing examined the 

aerodynamic and shape sensitivities of a 

launch abort tower (tractor design) versus 

a set of side mounted launch abort motors 

(pusher design) on the service module. 

November 2003

CALIPSO Proteus 

Propulsion Bus 

Design Concerns 

Prior to launch of NASA’s CALIPSO 

satellite, the hydrazine-fueled propulsion 

bus design was reviewed to assess the risk 

for propellant leakage and recommend 

measures to mitigate potential personnel 

exposure hazards during system fill and 

pressurization. 

August 2004

Cassini/Huygens 

Entry, Descent, 

& Landing

EDL analysis for the Saturn exploration 

probe included a focus on parachutedeployment trigger performance, 

prediction of the aerodynamic and 

radiative heating environment encountered 

at Titan, and the corresponding thermal 

protection system response. 

July 2003

The NESC is 

Established

Shortly following the Columbia 

accident, NASA Administrator Sean 

O’Keefe announced plans to create 

the NESC to serve as an Agencywide technical resource focused on 

engineering excellence to proactively 

help NASA avoid future problems.

September 2004

SOFIA Acoustical

Resonance 

A review of technical reports and an 

independent parametric study helped 

resolve concerns about the acoustic 

environment within the telescope cavity 

of the SOFIA airborne observatory and 

the potential for structural damage from 

resonance or tones.

January 2006

CEV Smart 

Buyer Support 

The Crew Exploration Vehicle Smart 

Buyer design was a multi-center, inhouse effort to formulate an innovative 

CEV design. Seven key trade studies 

including propulsion, launch abort 

systems, and reusability helped generate 

driving requirements and alternatives. 

March 2006

Composite Crew 

Module Pressure 

Vessel

A composite structural test article was 

designed, built, and tested with the 

help of a network of engineers within 

the Agency with hands-on experience 

using composites on habitable spacecraft 

designs. 

May 2007

Orbiter Wing Leading 

Edge RCC Panel 

Instances of reduced adherence between 

the protective coating on the orbiter 

wing’s leading edge and the underlying 

substrate led to investigations into root 

cause and the development of improved 

nondestructive evaluation methods for 

inspection. 

June 2007

Launch Abort System 

Risk Mitigation 

An alternative launch abort system 

concept was designed, developed, and 

demonstrated with a full-scale pad abort 

test as a risk mitigation for the Orion 

Program and to provide a fallback design 

for the Constellation Program. 

March 2007

Shell Buckling

Knockdown Factor

Discipline experts developed new 

analysis- and test-based shell buckling 

knockdown factors for high-performance 

aerospace shell structures to enable 

significant weight savings for programs 

such as the Space Launch System. 

October 2008

CPAS Reliability

Analysis 

Because the Capsule Parachute Assembly 

System is the top contributor to loss of 

crew risk for Orion, recommendations 

were provided on design, development, 

testing, and verification planning to help 

develop a more reliable parachute design. 

August 2010

Support to Trapped 

Chilean Miners 

Recommendations were given to the 

Chilean Government in the areas 

of air and water supply, hygiene, 

communications, medical advice, and 

design requirements for the capsule that 

rescued 33 miners trapped 2,220 feet 

below ground. 

February 2008

Kepler Reaction 

Wheel Usage Plan

Reaction wheel assembly failures on 

spacecraft prompted an assessment 

of mission risk for RWAs planned for 

the Kepler space observatory. Experts 

evaluated design, life requirements, and 

wheel usage and reviewed strategies to 

maximize RWA life. 

April 2009

COPV Life Prediction

Model Development To address the Agency-wide problem of 

predicting COPV stress rupture lifetimes, 

an empirically based test program began 

to develop data at various stress levels and 

investigate effects of design, materials, 

temperature, and scaling on reliability. 

October 2009

Crew Module Water

Landing Modeling 

To more accurately model and predict 

the interaction of the Orion CM with 

water during landing, a series of drop 

tests of a full-sized CM boilerplate 

helped characterize vehicle responses and 

improved the modeling approach.

March 2010

Launch Abort 

Systems Risk 

Mitigation

The NESC performed a conceptual 

design study for a follow-on to the 

successful launch abort system flight test 

in 2009. This concept used six abort 

motors with thrust vector control to 

perform active stabilization.

September 2012

Independent M&S

for CCP EDL 

A sustainable independent modeling and 

simulation capability was developed to 

investigate entry, descent, and landing 

issues for three commercial providers’ 

crew transport vehicles, allowing 

independent analyses throughout the 

vehicles’ life cycles. 

April 2011

JWST NIRSpec

Microshutter 

Subsystem 

The NESC assessed the NIRSpec 

Microshutter Subsystem qualification 

for fight. Design modifications were 

recommended to reduce the wear debris 

noted during life tests and subsequent 

NESC tests. Alternate materials were 

evaluated in follow-on work.

June 2012

Alternate Spacecraft 

Geometries on SLS 

Testing of five generic spacecraft shapes 

representative of commercial provider 

concepts that may be launched using 

SLS was performed on an SLS wind 

tunnel model to provide preliminary 

data and determine aerodynamic 

performance during ascent. 

February 2012

HST Gyroscope

Anomaly & Reliability

Two of the Hubble Space Telescope’s 

six gyroscopes experienced performance 

anomalies caused by flex lead corrosion. 

This led to an update of gyroscope 

reliability models and a management 

plan for the gyroscopes’ remaining life. 

October 2003

Ralph Roe, Jr., serves 

as first NESC Director.

July 2003

NASA Administrator Sean 

O'Keefe announces the 

establishment of the NESC.

CALIPSO Propulsion Bus Design

Orbiter RSB Actuator Braycote Grease 

Flowliner Test Planning & Flight Rationale

Post Proof NDE on ISS European Modules

Orbiter RSB Gear Margins

Orbiter Reaction Jet Drivers Potential Short

Soyuz 7 Helium Leak

ISS CMG Failure

MMOD Model BUMPER Inspection

Orbiter RCC WLE Attach H/W Integrity

Inconel 718 Fatigue Growth Tests in Liquid Hydrogen

Cassini/Huygens EDL

SRB Hold-Down Post Stud Hang-Up

Flowliner Benchtop Test

Orbiter Body Flap & RSB Actuator Bearing

SOFIA Acoustical Resonance

Orbiter Body Flap Actuator

ET Foam Certification

Loctite as 2nd Locking Feature for ISS Fasteners

Assessment of Cure-in-Place Ablative Applicator

ISS to Orbiter Power Transfer System

Flight Rationale for Expected Debris 

Models for Tile and RCC Damage Inspection

T-0 Umbilical to SSP Flight Element 

GH2 Vent Arm Behavior Prediction Model 

Bracket Ice Elimination

PLD/FPGA Devices IV&V Proposal

LH2 Vent Line Tanking Test Instrumentation 

EMU & ISS Airlock Coolant Loop Review for RTF

2003-2007 Battery Charger Single Point Failure on MRO ISS Fiber Optic Workmanship ECO Sensor Reliability Testing Safety of Welding & Polishing Flowliner Cracks ISS CMG Root Cause Analysis Stardust Entry Observing Campaign OV-105 RSB Conical Seal Panel Pitting Repair New Method for Updating MTBF Atlas V Tank Failure Investigation & Stress Analysis Reliability & Redundancy Trades Review of MPCV Aero/thermal D-Base Models CLV Preliminary Design Concepts ISS External TV Camera Shutdown NESC Support to Crew Launch Vehicle Diaz Action 23 CEV Smart Buyer Support Diaz Action 4 Orbiter Radiator Retract Assembly Flexhose Cracking ET Foam Thermal Analysis Project CONAX Pyrotechnic Valve Failures RTAX-S FPGA Risk Reduction RSB PDU Motor Dry Film Lubricant Bolt Issue ET Alternative IFR Design Concept Evaluation of Land Vs. Water Landings for CEV Composite Crew Module Pressure Vessel CLV Project RCS Thrust & Propellant Weight Sizing Crawler Transporter New Shoe Failure Shuttle Flight IR Measurements CEV LAS Aero Evaluation ET Bipod Bolt Locking Feature Verification Hydrazine Sublimation Calc. for APU 1 Fuel Tank STS-121 Water Spray Boiler STS-121 ET Ice/Frost Ramp Foam Loss ISS SAW Longeron Shadowing Report ET Bi-Pod Bolt Inserts & SOFI as 2nd Lock Feature Feasibility of Conducting J-2X Engine Test at GRC STS-115 Fuel Cell Motor 2-Phase Operation Eval. Robust & Reliable GN&C System Architectures for CxP Computational NDE for Critical Exploration Methodology NASA Broadband Aeroacoustic Stator Simulation Flight Force Measurements to Improve CLA Threaded Fastener System Design NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program Flight Data EDL Repository Elastic-Plastic Fracture of Al-lined COPVs DC/DC Converter Investigation Lunar Dust Safety CEV Integrated Landing & Recovery Evaluation CLV Thrust Vector Control Propellant Options KSC VAB Quantity-Distance Modeling Effort Critical Flaw Size Analysis for Aries I STS-117 ET Hail Repair CMG-1 Failure Investigation Dissenting Opinion Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Integrated COPV Technical Issues NSI Review for Phoenix Project Orbiter Wing Leading Edge RCC Panel Launch Abort System Risk Mitigation Assess Explosion/Blast Dynamics for Cx Launch Vehicles Task 5: Remote Entry Imaging Aeroheating Prediction Task 1 - Augmented Instrumentation Package Wireless Passive RF SAW Sensor-Tag

NDE POD for Casting Cracks 

High-Pressure Oxygen Feasibility & Safety

Wireless Connections in Spacecraft

External Pressure Field Predictions for Cx

Visual Impact Systems 

Multi-Species Gas Capability for USM3D Flow Solver

Assessment of Gravito-Inertial Loads & Environments

Distributed Impact Detector System Evaluation

Self-Contained O2 Generator Failure Mechanisms

BOK3 Computer Evaluation

Space-Fibre Technology Demonstration

JWST Electrical Cable Protection

GSFC Avionics Architecture Proposal Review

ISS Solar Alpha Rotary Joint Issue

Analysis of Ullage Collapse During Separation

ISS Plasma Contactor Unit Utilization

ARES SRB Thrust Oscillation

CM Crew Seat Load Attenuation & Isolation

Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence: Hypersonic Flows

MLCC - Low Voltage Failure Phenomenon

EMU Glove Damage

CxP Probabilistic Requirements Verification

Ares I-X USS Project Structural Review

MLAS Parachute Experiment

Statistical Analysis of RSRM Material Properties

CAIL Independent Analysis

LAS Motor Qualification

CxP Mass Properties & Performance Management

Kepler Reaction Wheel Usage Plan

De-Scope of Ares I-X DFI

Ares 1-X Vibro-acoustic Environments

Reliability Computations for SRB PBIS Transformers

CEV (Orion) Occupant Protection Phase 2

Review of MM/OD Environments Applied to Cx/CEV

CFD Analysis of STS-124 Pad A Launch Damage

Assess the LC-39A Flame Trench Repair

Spacecraft Connector Selection Process

CPAS Reliability Analysis

Use of Hydrazine for Orion Landing Roll Control

COPV Stress Rupture Reliability and NASA CPVWG

Risks & Mitigation Strategies for Use of LLB

LCROSS Vishay Capacitor Issue

Wave Model to Analyze Orion Water Landings

Probabilistic Design Opportunity Identification

Land-Based IR Imaging of STS-125 Entry

Ares I-X Demonstration Flight Instrumentation Issue

Ares I Lift-Off Acoustics Test Plan Review 

Orion/MSL EDL Engineering Workshop

Aircraft Exhaust Heat Effects

MLAS Visual Imagery Demonstration

Simulation Framework for Rapid EDL Analysis

ELC Avionics Independent Review

ISS N2/O2 Recharge System COPV Concept

ARC Wind Tunnel Model Design & Stress Analysis

Orion Ascent Abort-1 Loads Assessment

Independent Review of RFCS White Paper

COPV Life Prediction Model Development

DDT&E Process for Robustness of Spaceflight PLDs

SSP ET Project Foam Loss from STS-125 & STS-127

Reliability of Wide Range Pump on SAM Instrument

JWST Sunshield Venting Analysis

Cassini Titan Flyby Review

Crew Module Water Landing Modeling

Lightweight MMOD Shields for ISS Modules

US & Russian PRAs for MRM2 MMOD Risk Review

Flight Simulation Model Exchange

Mic Phased Array for Measuring LV Lift-off Acoustics

Pyrovalve Booster Interface Temperature Measurement

Reducing Risk in Vibroacoustic Environments

NASA Thermal Performance Database

Ares I Control Sensitivity to Orion SM Slosh Dynamics

Orion LAV Jet Interaction Aerodynamics

WMAP Battery Operations Problem

Assess/Mitigate Risk by Using CASE Tools

Autonomous Aerobraking (Phase 2)

2008-2012 MSL Aero/RCS Interaction Model Validation LAV Transonic Stability Augmentation NESC Support to NHTSA Vehicle Sudden Accel Pryo Valve Reliability Assessment for ELV Payloads Readiness for Crewed Flight Operations Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Review ISS On-Orbit Ultrasonic Noise Measurements Probabilistic Design Study Launch Abort Systems Risk Mitigation Orbital Express Rendezvous Lessons Learned Qualification of Taurus Fairing Frangible Separation Ring A-3 Test Stand Structural Dynamics Analysis Review of JWST Cryocooler Disturbance Models ISS Sabatier Assembly Altitude Combustion Stand Review Review of CoNNeCT Antenna Gimbal Honeywell RWA Lubricant Contamination Orbital Sciences Corporation SSP Approach to STS-135 with Soyuz Crew Rescue Phase V-5 In-Suit Light Exercise Prebreathe Protocol NASA Support to Trapped Chilean Miners Icing Research Tunnel Force Measurement System Assessment of the CrIS Instrument Structural Frame Orbiter Heat Shield Main Engine Ignition Acoustic Env. Effect of Drogue Parachutes on Orion Dynamics High Strain Rate Fracture of Orbiter OMS/RCS Thruster STS-133/ET-137 ET Stringer Crack and Repair Autonomous Rendezvous VNS Experiment on ISS CCM Permeability Characterization ISS CMG Performance Investigation Nickel-Titanium Superelastic Rolling Element Bearings ISS CMG Bearing Containment Sustainer Motor Design for Sounding Rocket Orion TPS Margin Study Orion Launch Abort System C/C-SiC Material JWST NIRSpec Microshutter Subsystem Orion Flight Test-1 Radiometer Feasibility CPAS Wake Deficit Wind Tunnel Testing Doppler Radar Profiler for Launch Winds Fire Protection Systems on Crewed Vehicles Penetrant POD Limit for on Orion Prop Tank Orion DMJS Separation Testing Empirical Launch Vehicle Explosion Model Eval. AJ-26 Engine Failure Investigation Results & Analysis ISS Air Quality Monitoring System NOFBX Demonstration on ISS Cassini Spacecraft Short Anomaly Review of LOC/LOM Model Validation for CCP Rel Nav Rendezvous Sensor DTO Performance Eval. Review of EFT-1 Landing & Recovery Planning Use of Commercial EEE Parts in NASA Orion CM-SM Umbilical Strut Vibration Testing HST Gyroscope Anomaly & Reliability Exploration Systems Indep. Modeling & Simulation Smart Buyer Assessment for Winged Reusable Spacecraft Orion Thermal Protection System Margin Study II Certification of Chute Systems for High-Altitude Deploy Atlantis Static Display Structural Analysis SSP Shock Test Experience for Reusable Flight Hardware ISS Orbital Replaceable Unit Wet Storage Risk Impact of NASA Arc Jet Complex Consolidation Chandra X-Ray Observatory COPV Risk Assessment

Assessment of the Maxwell SBC Panels

F-22 Life Support System Analysis

Use of COTS Electronic Components

Advancing Liquid Rocket Engine Combustion Stability

Computing Buffet Environments for SLS Configurations

Models of Pyroshock Response on Composite Materials 

MMOD Design and Analysis Improvements

Spin Forming Al-Li CM Metallic PV Bulkhead

M&S at SLS/MPCV/GSDO Interfaces

CAD Tools to Support Human Factors Design Teams

Check-Cases for Verification of 6-DOF Vehicle Sims.

Combustion Instability in Black Brant SRM

Alternate Spacecraft Geometries on SLS

Remote Imaging of EFT-1 Entry Heating Risk Reduction

E-1 Test Facility Blast/Acoustic Effect Mitigation Tools

Stirling Converter Heater Head Critical Flaw Analysis

Cassini Plasma Spectrometer Short Circuit Anomaly

ACCESS Probing Aircraft Flight Test Hazard Mitigation

Instrumentation for ISS On-Orbit NDE

JWST NIRSpec Micro Shutter Materials & Coatings

Stirling Converter Heater Head Fatigue/Crack Growth

Reaction Wheel Performance for NASA Missions

MPCV Heatshield Carrier Structure Alternate Design

Spacecraft GNC Component Open-Source Benchmarking

Modal Mass Accel. Curve Loads Analysis Methodology

SLS Aerosciences Consultation

Independent M&S for CCP EDL

GSDO Emergency Egress System Assessment 

SLS Advanced Booster Composite Case

SLS Block I Booster Insulation Characterization

NESC Assessment 

Timeline 2003-2023

continued...

Reflecting on 20 Years - NESC Assessment Timeline 11
December 2015

Fast Coupled Loads

Analysis via NTRC

To advance the loads and dynamics 

discipline, an approach was developed to 

capture changes in payload/launch vehicle 

coupled system interface accelerations due 

to payload finite element model updates 

without having to re-run the CLA.

March 2016

Proof Factors

for COPVs 

Historical data, the NASA experience base, 

and information from commercial and 

government launches and COPV suppliers 

aided the development of an understanding 

of risk and a rationale for reduction in the 

proof-test factor for COPVs. 

June 2016

CCP Load-and-Go

Assessment

A load-and-go approach for loading 

cryogenic propellants after crew have 

entered the flight vehicle versus traditional 

ingress after propellants are loaded was 

assessed to determine any hazards and the 

adequacy of mitigations. 

February 2015

ESD Avionics &

Software V&V Plan 

To assess the risk of integrated testing of 

MPCV, SLS, and GSDO avionics and 

software systems across multiple test 

facilities, model-based systems engineering 

techniques were employed to perform a 

detailed analysis of ESD’s V&V plan.

February 2014

Testing Ringsail &

DGB Parachutes

Wind tunnel tests of subscale, supersonic 

parachute designs were conducted to 

measure the static aerodynamic coefficients 

and dynamic motions of canopies in both 

reefed and unreefed configurations for use 

in future Mars missions.

May 2013

EMU Li-ion Battery 

Assessment

Boeing Dreamliner lithium-ion battery 

fires prompted an assessment of the 

ISS EMU batteries and charger system. 

The assessment compared the EMU 

and charger to the list of potential 

contributing factors developed from the 

Dreamliner investigation.

July 2013

Orion MPCV

Avcoat Study 

Processing of the Exploration Flight Test-1 

heatshield resulted in material strength 

degradation and cracking. Testing, 

analysis, and modeling helped determine 

the root causes of the issues and whether 

proposed mitigations would be effective.

July 2013

Assessing Risks

of Frangible Joint 

Designs

Frangible joints were instrumented 

and tested to develop analytical FEMs 

of frangible joint operation that were 

anchored to test data. A design of 

experiments approach was used along with 

the FEMs to estimate design reliability.

January 2022

P&P Element

Battery Safety 

The Power and Propulsion element 

of Gateway will use batteries to store 

electrical energy. Battery safety is an 

ever-present concern and the NESC is 

investigating battery risks. 

Testing of the SLS Launch Vehicle AAC Algorithm

Human Research Programs Risk of Injury from Loads

ICESat-II Laser Pointing

Electronic Components in Safety-Critical Systems

Solar Probe Plus Upper Stage Performance

SLS Uncertainty Management in Structural Design Eval.

CCP Ascent Abort Model Review 

Hybrid Spacecraft Attitude Control

Minimum Wear Life for ISS PCVP Rotor Bearing System

Validation of Range Safety BLASTDFO Model

Agency Non-Code Layered Pressure Vessels

Carbon Fiber Strand Failure Dynamic Event Testing 

Transonic Shock Reflections in SLS WT Testing

SLS T-0 Vehicle Stabilization Loads

SLS RS-25 Nozzle Flow Transient Acoustics Design

Hubble Space Telescope System Reliability

M&S of System Behavior at GSDO Interfaces

ISS Ammonia Leak Location - Sensing Technologies

ISS Plasma Contactor Unit Utilization Plan Update

Asteroid Retrieval Mission SEP Analysis of Alternatives

Reverse Polarity Capacitor on the ExPRESS ELC Simulator

Analysis of ATD Response for Proposed Orion CIAS

Evaluation of NDE on SNC Composite Specimens

EMU Li-Ion Battery Assessment

Kepler Hybrid Attitude Control Concepts Eval.

Spin Forming CM Pressure Bulkhead

IM Design Study for Lightweight Reentry Vehicle

OSIRIS-REx Asteroid TAG Onboard Nav Capability

Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs

Human Factors Review of SGSS Project

ORION MPCV Avcoat Study

MPCV CM Orbital Tube Weld Computed Radiography

Ascent Abort Loads Tool Development

SOFIA Cryo He Dewar Heat Flux Evaluation

ACM C/C-SiC Component Performance Testing Approach 

CPV Working Group

Stress Ruptures COPV

Ground Wind Loads Uncertainty for Mars Insight Lander 

USN Multi-Stage Supersonic Target

Enhanced Melamine Foam Acoustic Test

Testing of ISS Ultrasonic Leak Location Concept

Review of ESD Integrated Hazard Process

Evaluate Moving GVL Capabilities from VATF to STL

Review of SEXTANT & DSAC Technology Demo Projects

MMS High Voltage Optocoupler 

VIPR Experiment Impacts on C-17 Engine-Pylon 

Raven Impact on ISS Visiting Vehicles

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying C2 Software

Human Vibration Modeling for MPCV Coupled Loads

Testing Ringsail & DGB Parachutes

ISS/EVA Li-Ion Battery TR Reduction Measures 2013-2018 Alternative Software Programming for HSF Humidity and Dry Film Lubricant Storage & Performance SLS, GSDO, & MPCV Modal Test Model Correlation Plans Modeling of CT, ML, and Forcing Functions JPSS MMOD Assessment CCP Electrical Power System Review ISS Anomalies Trending Study Orion Window Wavefront Measurement Capability E-1 Test Stand Structural Damage Comprehensive Analysis of X-15 Flight 3-65 Accident COPV Liner Inspection Capability Development SMAP RBA Deployment Risk SAFER Battery Assessment Model of SLS/MPCV/GSDO Stack on the Pad uPSP to Predict LV Buffet Environments Stability of SLS FCS w/Adaptive Augmentation Orion ECLSS Assessment Backshell Pressure Field for MEDLI 2 Support Airborne Observation of ATV-5 Reentry Nonlinear Slosh Damping Analysis for LVs Implementation of JR-A Methodology in NASGRO/FADD Robonaut Battery Safety TPS MMOD Damage Risk & Mitigation for Crewed Vehicles Portable Fire Extinguisher Evaluation ISS Plasma Contactor Unit Utilization Plan Follow-on ISS Columbus Module Temperature Response Test Rad750 Qualification Testing MMOD Risk Predictions with On-orbit Assets Risk Reduction of Orion GFE ECLS Review of SLS Flight Software Maxwell SBC Panels Evaluation IR Laser Sensor Technology Readiness Max. LHe Cryostat Pressure from Vacuum Jacket Failure Multi-Purpose Oxygen Generators Swelling ESD Avionics & Software V&V Plan ESD Integration Review MMOD Pressure Vessel Failure Criteria Assessment of AA-2 Downgrade System Identification Applied to Parachute Modeling GEER Independent Review Orion Ti Hydrazine Tank Weld Sustain Load Cracking Issue SLS B1 Booster Alternate Internal Insulation Risk Reduction SPP: FIELDS Whip Antenna ESD Verification & Validation Plan Review of Orion-ESM Interfaces EEE Parts Testing for CCP CCP Avionics Architecture Review M&P Requirements for CCP Class A Welds CCP Aerodynamics Database Review Orion MPCV GN&C FDIR Review Verification of Abort Loads JWST Space Environment Launch Constraints ESM Hyper System Valve Bellows Review Fast Coupled Loads Analysis via NTRC Static Software Analysis of NASA Autonomous FTS Improved Design & Optimization of Complex Trajectories CCP V&V Integration & Mapping Best Practices for Organizational Resilience in ISS Program ESD Integrated Vehicle Modal Test Model Correlation Fracture of Propulsion/ECLSS Valve Bellows Seals Parts- vs. Board- & Box-Level Screening Testing Burst Factor Assessment for Pressure Vessels Proof Factors for COPVs Crew Vibration & Shock Requirements & Compliance ISS Plasma Interaction Model Review CCP SE&I Processes Evaluation Review of ESA Post Proof NDE CubeSat Rad. Environments & ISS Rad. Dose Data Replacement Material Evaluation for Kalrez 1045 IV of SLS B1 Gust Methodology & Loads CCP Load & Go Assessment Q-Switch Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System NISAR MMOD Space Weather Action Plan SLS Liftoff Environment Models Orion SIMULINK GNC Code Generation Viscous Effects on LV Ground Wind-Induced Oscillations CCP Occupant Protection Requirement Verification Center Burst Cracks on Bearing Balls in Mechanisms CCP Aerodynamics Review ELC Reverse Capacitor Follow-on Testing Calorimetry for Li-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway COPV Life Test Liquid Apogee Engine Failures CCP Water Drop Test Review Use of IETM to Support Ground Systems Ops. Orion Simulator Risk Assessment DSCOVR CompHub Reset Anomaly COPV Densified LOX Compatibility Material Compatibility for Orion Propulsion Bellows Cross-Program V&V Integration and Mapping Juno Check Valve Anomaly Characterization of CCP Capsule Dynamics F/A-18 Fleet Physiological Events Multi-Purpose COPV Liner Inspection System Radiation SEE Impact on Avionics Architecture Reliability Space Weather Architecture Verification of SLS Ascent Loads Safe, High-Power Li-Ion Battery Module Design Human System Gap Analysis for Supersonic X-Plane Lead H2 Pop during SLS RS-25 Start Propellant Tank Safe-Life Analysis Agency Systemic M&P Issues ISS Li-Ion Battery TR Mitigation Thermocouple Interference during High-Speed Entry Wire Derating Approach for HSF Applications Stress Rupture of COPV Composites in LOX & RP-1 ISS RPCM Hot Mate/Demate During EVA Exceptions for Use of Etchant Prior to Dye Inspections

Human Factors Analysis of Test Stand Operations 

Ascent Cover Separation System

EGS ML Structures Model Review

Level Sensors for ESM Propellant Tanks

Calorimetry for Large Li-Ion Cell TR

Likelihood Scoring of ESD Risk for EM1 & EM2

Launch Availability Model Assessment

Fire Suppression System Failure Review

Human Performance Contributions to Aviation Safety 

Southern Hemisphere Meteoroid Environment 

Hydrodynamics for the Orion Uprighting System

Aerospace Valve Industrial Base and Acquisition Practices 

Standards for Additive Manufacturing 

DSCOVR PHA Data Analysis

MDP Transient Assessment

Flexible Multibody Dynamics Modeling for Spacecraft

Aerodynamic Buffet Flight Test

Reliable Method to Reason about Mass Growth

Improvements to the Flight Analysis and Simulation Tool

CCP ULA TPS Spray-On Foam Insulation Testing

Pilot Breathing Assessment

FM Analysis Tools Interoperability and Component Sharing

Spacecraft Safety Equipment Assessment

CCP Main Parachute NDE

CCP Parachute Pack Ground Extraction Testing 

EEE parts Copper Wire Bonds for Spacecraft

CCP COPV Grain Size

COPV 2.0 Overwrap Testing

HSI for Safety-Critical Range Operations at WFF

Support of RRM3 Transfer Valve issue

CCP Propellant and Pressurization COPV Support

Solderless Interconnects and Interposers

Assessment of a CCP Autonomous FTS

Liftoff M&S of T0 Umbilicals for SLS

Micro-Thrusters for Precision Attitude Control

ISS Cargo Tool Loads Analysis – IV&V

Thick Section Aluminum-Lithium 2195 Natural Aging

Compatibility of Metals in Hypergolic Propellants

Spacecraft Passivation Techniques

Need for Wireless EDL Instrumentation Validation 

Shuttle Enterprise MLG Fracture

Parachute RLC Modification and Qualification

ML Independent Model Verification

Wire and Wire Bundle Ampacity Testing and Analysis

ORDEM3.1 Orbital Debris Model Review

Large Male ATD Model Correlation Improvement

Alternative O-Ring Materials for Hypergols

Review of CCP AM Program

GG Baffle Design and Analysis

Transient Combustion Modeling for Hypergolic Engines

Updating RefProp with NTO Properties

Models of the SLS LH and LOX Pressurization Systems

Midpoint Monitoring in Batteries

FPMU Data Processing Algorithm Analysis 

BON GCR Model Improvements

CCP Post-flight Reference Radiation Environments

CCP Ascent Stability

2nd Lunar Dust Workshop

Qualification of Radiographic NDE Techniques

Orion - Super Guppy Loads Issue

Welded Coupon Autofrettage Crack Growth Tests

Internal Insulation Thermal Performance

Occupant Protection Testing

SLS High Reynolds Number Testing

Use of COTS Guidance for NASA Missions

Guidelines for an Avionics RadHard Assurance

Orion CM Side Hatch Analysis

Support for Anaerobic Hydrogen Detection Sensor

HVI Testing of Kevlar KM2+

Tube Test Coupon for COPV Mechanics

Capacitor Microstructure Analysis/Tools Development

Filtration of Propulsion and Pressurant Systems

Shock Prediction: Transient Finite Energy Predictor

State of Hydrazine Synthesis 

Nuclear Propulsion for Mars Missions

Ref. Architecture for ISS and Exp. EVA Power System

Honeywell MIMU Operational Life Investigation

Cyclomatic Complexity Evaluation

Biocide Impacts on Life Support and EVA Architectures

EGS ICPS Umbilical Modeling 

Time-Triggered Ethernet in the Artemis Architecture

Study for the GSFC LISA Laser

Impact of CCP Software Issues on Orion/SLS

Ti-NTO Compatibility Cross-Program Impact 

Solar Wind Radiation Damage of Metallic Coatings

Soyuz Landing Reconstructions

Evaluation of CCP Fire Suppression

Autoignition Temp. of Isopropyl and Ethanol

Orion Frangible Joint Threshold and Margin Analysis

Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters

CCP Drogue and Main Impact Damage Tolerance

Evaluation of Alternate He Pressure Control Component

Fire Suppression System Requirements for CCP 

Medical Ceramic Oxygen Generator 

ESD Integrated Hazard Review

Unconservatism of LEFM Analysis Post Autofrettage

He Concentration on TEA-TEB Combustion in Oxygen

EMU Sublimator Corrosion

CCP LAE Valves Fault Tolerance Variance Risk

CCP SM Thruster ATP Hot Fire Relaxation

LaRC TDT Corrective Actions 

CFD Assessment of AA-2 Axial Force Anomaly

Fire Cartridge Failure Invest., Mfg., & Hardware Verif.

CCP Fluid Systems Contamination

CCP Booster Return Loads Reuse Implications

Flex Harness Technical Support

Arecibo Observatory Failure Investigation

Lunar Meteoroid Ejecta Model Review

He Evolution from He-Saturated Hypergols

Safe Human Expeditions Beyond LEO

RP-1 Leak Behavior Characterization

CCP Crew-1 TPS Peer Review

CCP Software Common Mode Failure 

MPCV COPV Damage Tolerance Life 

Evaluate Falcon LOX Shroud and HEX Can Leakage

Reduced Pressure Atmospheres on Env. Control and Life

Zero-g Propellant Gauging Technologies

LC-39A Pad Modification Evaluation

Removal of Cd from High Purity Hydrazine

MAV Buffet / Aeroacoustics Numerical Simulations

Hydrazine Hydrate Analysis

Energy Modulator Webbing Shredding Testing

Honeywell RWA Bearing Contamination

Predicting Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator Failures 2019-2023 Ablative TPS Reuse Pressure Spikes on Material in a Hypergolic Engine CCP Interoperability Study SLS Prevalve Failure Assessment Medical Ceramic Oxygen Generator Thermophysical Properties of Liquid TEA-TEB Hot Gas Intrusion in Launch Vehicle Engine Bays Parachute Dispersion Bridle Load Link Evaluation Galvanic Corrosion in Micro Detectors and MEMs Devices Frangible Joint Support to SLS MPCV Launch Abort Vehicle Powered Aero Database Development using FUN3D Assessment of MAIA’s Proposed Propulsion System Motion Magnification for Gimbaled Bellows AACT Risk Reduction Project - Safe Life Category AACT Risk Reduction Project - inSitu Monitoring Category AACT Risk Reduction Project - Metallurgy Category MSR EEV Dynamic Stability Assessment Spacecraft Fire Safety Standard Gateway PPE COPV Damage Tolerance Life Support Assessment of NASA Quantum Sensing Capability CCP Fracture Control Risk Reduction Cross-Program Exposure Testing Review Frangible Joint Working Group CCP ECLSS-ATCS Review EUS COPV Helium Tank with Large Grain Aluminum Alloy Commercial Oxidizer Tank Design & Qualification M&P Selection Criteria for Lunar Construction Testing Standard for CO2 Partial Pressure in EVA Suits Study of Material Sensitivities to N2O4/MON Exposure Helium Solubility in MMH and NTO Dragonfly Dynamic Stability Hot-Fire Testing of 5 lbf Class RCS Thrusters Exploration Systems Exterior Lighting Design Guidance Pressurized Rover Review, JAXA and NASA Concepts Examination of Space Vehicle Ethernet Interconnects Thruster Proof Failure Investigation SLS Core Stage 2219-T87 Thick Plate Issue P&P Element Battery Safety Space-Shielding Radiation Dosage Code Eval. & ID CCP Software Erroneous Output During Entry Mitigation ISS Universal Waste Management System Optical Sensor Updates and Modernization of the CEA Code Unique Science from the Moon in the Artemis Era Avionics Packaging Processes and Best Practices Possible Incompatibility DART with its NEXT-C Ion Engine Phased Array Microphone System Development SLS FTS Stray Voltage Anomaly NASA Systems Maint. Stds for Artemis and Beyond Cracked Samples for NDE Standards Dynamic Pitch Testing of CCP Capsule at Transonic Speeds Self-Reacting Friction Stir Weld (SR-FSW) Anomalies Hardline O2 and Fire Response NESC PDV System Repair and Modernization Programmable Logic Device Guidance and Standard Software Defect Density Analysis across NASA Design and Testing of a Hypergolic Propellant Thruster Independent V&V of MAV Ascent Phase of Flight CCP Provider Landing Simulations LOX-Methane QD and Safety Improved HVI Test Methodology Identification Review of NTO-HFE Compatibility for TPS Reuse FSW and GNC SME Support for Psyche Precedence Algorithm Methodology for Nonlinear Analyses Li-Ion Cell TR Multiphysics Analysis Composite Consult for New LV Application MSR Orbiting Sample Model Review HALO CDR SE Support Parachute Impact Damage Tolerance Evaluation Display Management Computer Reset Anomaly Review of SHREC Failure Investigation Energy Modulator Extension Testing Artemis-1 Supplemental Parachute Imagery "Know Before You Go" to Mars Novel FIV Testing Orion Mass Gauging Development Support Specifying Optical Surfaces to Control Near-Angle Scatter Uncertainty Quantification for PV Damage Tolerance NEPP Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer Pathfinder Artemis-1 SLS Cryo Servicing Team Ti-NTO Ignition Spots Artemis-1 SLS FTS Battery Waiver Rationale Development Artemis-1 SciFli Imaging Support Mechanical Model/Parameter Selection for Propellant Slosh MPCV Explosive Transfer Line Assessment Power Distribution Unit Technical Support to MPCV GSFC SE Future Capability NASA-STD-6001 Revision C Variable Testing CCP Design Certification Review Permeation of Oxidizer Valve Soft Goods Support to Sandia National Lab Lunar Landing Plume Surface Interaction TIM Mobile Launcher 2 Support to EGS Program Mars Ascent Vehicle Preliminary Design Review EGS/SLS Krytox Contamination Support Friction Stir Welding SME Support NASA and External Detector Capability Lunar Suit Tribocharging Risk Assessment Pyro Cable Analysis Refractory Concrete Subject Matter Expertise NASA's Meteor Shower Forecasting Sustainability Artemis-1 Orion PCDU Latching Current Limiter SLS Block 1 ISPE Crew CDR Review EGS Mobile Launcher 2 Structure Design Peer Review Curved Transparency Optical Properties Standard Gateway Refueling Test Bed Development CCP Technical Support MPCV Flywheel Exercise Device Acoustic Reduction DaVinci Mission Technical Support Lunar Flashlight Anomaly Support Orion Crew Module Heat Shield Avcoat Investigation HFE Cleaning and Thermal Solvent SE and MBSE Support to Advanced Capabilities Division

CO2 Removal Expertise for JAXA I-Hab 

Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation

SpaceVPX Interoperability Open Standard

On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 

Facilities Review for ESDMD and SOMD Architecture

Integrated Propulsion Controller

X-59 Fuel Tank 

PFE Microgravity Compatibility Test

Dichloromethane Bond Testing Data Gap

MAV Flight Test Risk Assessment

Technical Support for X-57 Project 

Space-based Solar Neutrino Spacecraft Detector

SLS Core Stage Thrust Vector Control Stability Analysis

Flight Deck Automation System Integration 

Materials Analysis for Roman Wide Field Instrument

Damage Tolerance Testing for Vivace

Vulcan Centaur Investigation

Soyuz and Progress Coolant Leak 

WB-57 Actuator Gear Support

SE for Commercial LEO Development Program

Cold Electronics for Lunar Missions

Farside Seismic Suite Project Loop Heat Pipe Failure 

MEGANE Instrument Gamma-Ray Spectrometer

Modernization of NASA's Risk Classification

NDE and Fracture Critical Eval. for ISS Urine Pretreat Tank

CCP Landing Risk Assessment

CCP Tape Flammability Risk

Artemis 1 Acoustic and Blast Load Environments

Evaluation of Dragonfly Replan Scenarios

Alternative to NASA STD 5019

Spacesuit Material Wire Ignition Risk Mitigation

Nuclear Electric Propulsion Technology Maturation Plan 

Peer Review of CCP Ablation/Thermal Analysis

SLS B1B FSW CDR Review Team Support

Cryogenic Fluid Management SME Support to DARPA

Mass Properties Evaluation of CCP Providers 

Orion Side Hatch Delta Pressure Opening Analysis

Automated Small Leak Location 

RST Outer Barrel Assembly 

ISS PrK Structural Atmospheric Leak

Review Alternate Approach to NASA-STD-5020

TEMPO Post Launch Acceptance Review Support

SX50 Pressure Sensor Anomaly

MAPTIS Flammability Screen Updates

Peer Review Orion Separation Bolt Thermal Analysis

MSR CCRS Contact Modeling

Next Gen Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Project

Parachute Design Guidelines Revision and Development

Spin Chute Design for X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator

SLS Booster Design and Construction Standard Review

SLS Debris Resolution Team Support

Mobile Launcher 2 Turn-Flow Pressure Review

Slew Sequence to Calibrate ST-to-IMU Misalignment

Review of Joby S4 Propulsion Motor Design

August 2019

Second Lunar 

Dust Workshop

Lunar dust is a concern for future lunar 

missions. An NESC workshop addressed 

concerns about the physical nature of the 

dust, its impact on human health, and 

its impact on lunar surface systems and 

operations.

January 2020

Nuclear Propulsion

for Mars Missions 

Both nuclear electric and thermal 

propulsion are under consideration for 

Mars missions. The NESC recently 

assessed a range of components and 

systems to determine their technical 

maturity and potential to reach flight 

qualification by 2035.

January 2018

Calorimetry for

Large Li-ion Cell TR

Lithium-ion cells can experience thermal 

runaway and rapidly release energy. 

The NESC prototyped a calorimeter 

that could tally the total thermal energy 

released plus the fractions liberated and 

energy conducted through the cell casing.

April 2018

Pilot Breathing 

Assessment 

NAVAIR requested an independent 

review of their number one safety issue: 

an increased occurrence of physiological 

events across their F/A-18 fleet, and to 

advise and or confirm they are taking 

the proper corrective steps to address 

the issue.

March 2019

ORDEM 3.1 Orbital 

Debris Model Review 

ORDEM is a tool for modeling the 

Earth’s orbital debris environment to 

inform spacecraft shielding design. The 

NESC peer-reviewed and exercised the 

new software to evaluate its performance 

and operational characteristics.

March 2019

Alternative O-Ring

Materials for Hypergols 

O-rings seal high-pressure lines that 

contain liquid engine propellants and 

gases. Material obsolescence caused 

an O-ring supplier to stop producing 

a popular product. The NESC tested 

replacement materials compatible with 

hypergolic propellants.

March 2021

Medical Ceramic

Oxygen Generator 

The NESC supported the design of a 

more energy efficient medical ceramic 

oxygen generator for long-duration 

missions and astronauts during EVAs 

beyond low Earth orbit, as well as for 

providing medical-grade oxygen to 

patients in remote locations on Earth.

August 2020

Arecibo Observatory

Failure Investigation

The NESC provided nondestructive 

evaluation, materials, and structures 

expertise to an investigation into an 

auxiliary cable socket failure on the 

Arecibo Observatory.

July 2020

Unconservatism of 

LEFM Analysis PostAutofrettage 

NESC testing showed a lack of 

conservatism in LEFM analyses that did 

not account for damage a COPV liner 

incurs during the compressive portion 

of autofrettage, which could result in 

unconservative life predictions.

March 2023

Expansion of Check 

Cases for 6DOF 

Simulation 

The NESC is providing check cases for 

6DOF simulations of lunar-focused 

and manual-control missions. The cases 

will be added to an extensive library of 

benchmark cases NASA uses to validate 

critical design simulations. 

January 2023

Lunar Suit 

Tribocharging Risk 

Assessment 

Because triboelectric charging on the 

lunar surface is a top risk for Exploration 

EVAs, the NESC provided independent 

reviews and expertise to help mature a 

charging model that will inform future 

crew and missions on those risks. 

June 2014

Tim Wilson becomes

NESC Director.

12 Reflecting on 20 Years - NESC Assessment Timeline Reflecting on 20 Years - NESC Assessment Timeline 13
Conduct

Assessment

Testing, 

Data Collection,

Modeling, and 

Analysis

Document

Results

NRB

Approval

NRB

Peer Review + Approval

Assessment Team

NESC Core & Extended Team Members

Form 

Assessment

Team and

Develop Plan

Deliver 

Engineering

Report to 

Stakeholders

Evaluate

and 

Prioritize

Request

Submit

Request

The NESC assessment process is key to developing peer-reviewed engineering reports for stakeholders. 

Requests for technical assistance are evaluated by the NESC Review Board (NRB). If a request is approved, a team is 

formed that will perform independent testing, analyses, and other activities as necessary to develop the data needed to 

answer the stakeholder's request. An NESC team’s findings, observations, and recommendations are documented 

within an engineering report and are peer reviewed and approved by the NRB prior to release to the stakeholder.

NESC ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Data as of September 30, 2023

3.5% Other NASA Offices

4.3% Office of Chief Engineer

ACCEPTED REQUESTS 

BY MISSION DIRECTORATE

FY19-FY23

Aeronautics 

Research

1.9%

Space 

Technology

3.8%

Broad 

Agency/

External

19.7%

Multiple Mission 

Directorates

Space 

Operations

31.9%

ISS, CCP, LSP

Science

14.9%

Exploration 

Systems 

Development

27.8%

EGS, SLS, MPCV, 

Gateway, HLS, ESD

SOURCES OF

ACCEPTED REQUESTS

FY04-FY23

0.4%

2.7%

1.5%

2.7%

17.3%

1.9%

17.5% NESC

48.2%

Anonymous

Safety & Mission Assurance at Centers

Center Management

External to Agency

Program Management

Office of Safety & Mission Assurance

Engineering and Scientific Organizations

159 IN-PROGRESS REQUESTS

BY PRIORITY

PRIORITY

1 PRIORITY 1

Projects in the 

flight phase

PRIORITY 3

Known problems

not being addressed 

by any project

PRIORITY 5

Work to improve

a system

PRIORITY 2

Projects in the 

design phase

PRIORITY 4

Work to avoid 

potential future 

problems

10%

PRIORITY

2

PRIORITY

4

23%

19%

4%

PRIORITY

3

PRIORITY

5

50%

ASSESSMENTS typically include 

independent testing and/or analyses, the 

results of which are peer reviewed by the 

NESC Review Board and documented in 

engineering reports. 

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES typically 

include providing technical expertise for 

consulting on program/project issues, 

supporting design reviews, and other 

short-term technical activities.

2023 REQUEST ACTIVITY SUMMARY:

• 80 Accepted Requests in FY23

• 80 Completed Requests in FY23

• 1,240 Accepted Requests since 2003

• 1,081 Completed Requests since 2003

ASSESSMENTS

& SUPPORT 

ACTIVITIES

FY23

385 ACCEPTED REQUESTS

BY ORGANIZATION

FY19-FY23

Submitted Requests are Evaluated Based on 

NESC Selection Priorities and OCE Risk List

14 Assessments & Support Activities Assessments & Support Activities 15

4%

4%

17.9%

22.4%

7.8%

6.2%

6.2%

4.4%

3.6%

2.9%

2.1%

16.9%

0.8%

0.5%

1.6%

1.3%

1.3%

1.8%

1.3%

1.0%

Commercial Crew Program

Multiple Mission Directorates

Science Mission Directorate

 Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

 International Space Station

 Space Launch System

 Former Exploration Systems Development

 Space Technology Mission Directorate

 Exploration Ground Systems

 Human Landing Systems

 Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

 Gateway

 xEVA and Human Surface Mobility Program

 Launch Services Program

 Moon to Mars

 From External Federal Agencies

 Multiple Space Operations Programs

 Multiple Exploration Systems
Reflecting on 20 Years...

Dosing

Pump

Dosing

Assembly

Conductivity

Sensor

Key components of the ISS UWMS.

16 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 1 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 1 17

Prototype Sensor 

Developed for ISS UWMS 

A new toilet for the ISS, called the Universal Waste Management System (UWMS), uses a unique sensor that measures 

the proper mixing of a diluted pretreat compound with urine for 

processing. The concentration of this pretreat is carefully measured prior to its injection into the urine stream not only to limit 

use of the pretreat but also to protect the processing systems 

from biological activity. Optimal performance requires accurate 

and stable sensor measurements. Thus, a study was undertaken to compare the performance of the existing conductivity 

sensor, which exhibits output voltage decay over time, with an 

optical sensor, whose output voltage should be stable over time. 

The NESC assisted the ISS program in exploring the potential 

use of an optical sensor and in developing a prototype. To determine whether an optical sensor could reliably measure UWMS 

pretreat concentrations, the NESC assessment team conducted visible wavelength transmission spectroscopic testing of the 

pretreat compound at various concentrations and found an optical sensor was a feasible candidate for this application. The 

team then constructed and tested preliminary devices that ultimately led to a self-contained prototype, which was offered to 

the ISS Program for further testing. This work was performed 

by LaRC, KSC, and MSFC. NASA/TM-2023000765.

Assessments Completed in FY23

Priority 1: Projects in the Flight Phase

Examination of Space Vehicle Ethernet Interconnects 

Both NASA and the aerospace community have increased their use of Ethernet-based command and control designs. For the 

Agency, the application of Ethernet in space vehicles must overcome unique challenges such as electrostatic discharge resilience, controlling impedance through long runs with multiple connectors, shielding through interconnects, and shock/vibration 

environments. In 2021, the NESC began examining the performance of Ethernet in these configurations to help address some 

flight anomalies characterized by excessive bit-error rates (BER). The team’s goal was to develop guidance for system designers 

that would help ensure network robustness when used in flight-critical space applications. 

The team reviewed studies on the best 

Ethernet design and manufacturing practices 

and consulted with subject matter experts on 

recent challenges with Ethernet spacecraft 

systems. After procuring Ethernet cables and 

connectors, the team developed a test matrix 

and designed harnesses and test apparatuses 

to measure and characterize critical electrical 

properties such as loss of link, false carriers, 

and BERs under spacecraft environments. 

They also measured attenuation, near-end 

crosstalk, the impact of charging on cables 

and at connector interfaces, temperature extremes, vibration, and shock. Their results 

were leveraged to develop guidance and provide feedback on requirements for building 

Ethernet cables that will be distributed to communities using and developing these systems. 

This work was performed by LaRC, GSFC, 

JPL, KSC, MSFC, JSC, GRC, and NAVAIR. 

LLIS Entry 31403.

Simplified Ethernet Error Fishbone Chart

PHY device parameters not well 

enough understood with respect to 

creating false carriers

Ethernet Errors

Oxides/contamination

on electrical contacts

Failure of contact retention

inside connector body

Airstream causes movement 

of connector at the interface 

or connector saver

Acoustic stresses adversely 

impacting connector components

Connectors not designed to 

meet application electrical and 

environmental requirements

Fretting between 

electrical contacts

Ethernet 

Errors

Cable system develops 

voltage when vehicle passes 

through a charged cloud

Cable susceptible to internal 

charging when cable is moved or 

bent from launch stresses

Cable adhesive wire supports fall 

allowing excessive cable movement 

and charge build-up

Cable/Connector develops 

surface charging

Cable/Connector develops deep 

level dielectric charging

Defective 

part/software

PHY overly sensitive 

to noise

Crosstalk between 

cable pairs

EMC/EMI noise due to inadequate 

cable/connector shielding

PHY board layout and/or 

interface connectors 

degrading ethernet

Triboelectric Charging Causes

Noise on Ethernet Cable

Connector Intermittent Fault Due to

Launch Stresses or Materials Issues

Ethernet Physical (PHY)/Circuit Issue Loss of Ethernet Cable Integrity

Cable electrical characteristics not 

adequate for length of cable and 

presence of multiple connectors leading 

to marginal signal quality

Cable not qualified to all ethernet 

requirements given length and launch 

environmental conditions

Priority 1 In-Progress Assessments

• Optimal Slew Sequence to Calibrate ST-to-IMU Misalignment 

• Orion Side Hatch Analysis and Correlation 

• PFE Microgravity Compatibility Test 

• Energy Modulator Extension Testing 

• LOX-Methane QD and Safety 

• Hardline O2 and Fire Response 

• Cracked Samples for NDE Standards 

• Capsule Dynamic Pitch at Transonic Speeds 

• Software Erroneous Output During Entry Risk

• ECLSS-ATCS Review 

• Cross-Program Exposure Testing Review 

• Fracture Control Risk Reduction 

• Hot Gas Intrusion in Engine Bays 

• Fire Cartridge Investigation, Manufacturing, and Hardware Verification 

• Ti-NTO Compatibility Cross-Program Impact and Lessons Learned

Priority 1 In-Progress Support Activities

• Orion Digital Motor Controller Support 

• ML 2 Turn-Flow Pressure Tabletop Review 

• SLS Debris Resolution Team 

• SLS Booster Design and Construction 

• Orion Separation Bolt Thermal Analysis 

• Pressure Sensor Anomaly 

• TEMPO Post-Launch Acceptance Review 

• Alternate Approach to NASA-STD-5020 

• ISS Air Leak 

• Mass Properties Evaluation of CCP Providers 

• Artemis I Acoustic and Blast Load Environments 

• WB-57 Actuator Gear 

• X-57 Project 

• Heatshield Char Investigation 

• Lunar Flashlight Anomaly Support 

• Artemis I Orion PCDU Latching Current Limiter 

• MPCV Power Distribution Unit 

• Ti-NTO Ignition Spots 

• EMU Water Management

Priority 1 Completed Support Activities

• Review of CCP Ablation/Thermal Analysis 

• Integrated Propulsion Controller Backup 

• Krytox Contamination 

• Artemis I SciFli Imaging Support 

• Artemis I SLS FTS Battery 

• Artemis I SLS Cryo Servicing Team 

• Review of SHREC Failure Investigation 

• Parachute Impact Damage Tolerance Evaluation 

• EVA Fan/Pump/Separator Mitigation 

• Heatshield ATP 

• CCP Engineering & Safety Review Efforts 

• Water in Helmet Investigation 

• LNG Detank Anomaly Investigation Team 

• Lucy Project ART Kevlar Lanyard Testing 

• ISS FGB Air Leak 

• Coolant Leak Fault Tree Closure

"Congratulations to the NESC team on its 20th anniversary. In the wake of the Columbia disaster in 2003, we were reminded, 

unfortunately once again, that we are never as smart as we think we are. We established the NESC to provide our programs with a 

team of highly responsive independent technical experts that could help our decision makers better understand and 

thus more effectively mitigate their toughest engineering risks. In these 20 years, under the leadership of Ralph Roe 

and Tim Wilson, the NESC has established itself as the go-to, independent technical resource that programs from 

all Agency enterprises can depend on to make them smarter about their designs, environments, and operations 

concepts, thus enhancing their ability to meet NASA’s safety and mission success goals."

Bryan D. O'Connor, NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, 2002-11 

"It is hard to believe it was 20 years ago that the NESC went from concept to reality. In those intervening 

years, the NESC has proven its worth time and again by engaging its technical experts in some the 

Agency's most difficult challenges. I will always fondly remember my time at the NESC as some of the 

most interesting and challenging, yet fulfilling, experiences of my NASA career."

Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech, Stennis Space Center Director

(NESC Deputy Director, 2003-05)
Reflecting on 20 Years...

18 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 19

Priority 2: Projects in the Design Phase

Mitigating Thermocouple 

Interference During High-Speed 

Earth Entry 

NASA uses thermocouples (TC) to measure temperatures 

of the thermal protection system during a spacecraft’s highspeed atmospheric entry. During Space Shuttle missions 

and the Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1, TCs experienced 

sporadic anomalous temperature indications. The suspicion 

was that the plasma environment of entry affected the 

heatshield TCs causing electrical signals that appeared as 

temperature changes. The team concluded that a direct 

current was formed between the plasma and the TC circuitry, 

causing the anomalies. 

To help understand and prevent TC issues for future missions, the NESC performed tests and analyses, including 

the evaluation of heatshield material thermal and electrical 

properties, verification of TC installation orientation and electromagnetic response, and simulation of voltage generated 

from the plasma flow fields and by electromagnetic induction 

caused by high-velocity travel through the Earth’s magnetic 

field. The NESC recommended mitigations including insulating the TCs from external electrical sources, optimizing TC 

circuitry, and considering other heatshield TC integration 

design options. The NESC also suggested flying TCs of the 

type that exhibited the temperature abnormality alongside 

modified TCs to validate the efficacy of the changes made 

to mitigate the anomaly. This work was performed by LaRC, 

WSTF, KSC, JSC, ARC, MSFC, and JPL.

(Top) Orion EFT-1 heatshield included embedded TCs. Colorized infrared (IR) 

reentry image data used to correlate temperature with TC readings.

(Middle) IR image of STS-115 overlaid on orbiter CAD model showing location 

of TCs. (Bottom) Location of TCs on Endeavor and TC configurations for 

reentry temperature measurement experiment on STS-134. 

Autonomous Flight Termination Systems 

Pyrotechnic systems are in a unique category of safety-critical systems 

because inadvertent activation of a pyrotechnic device resulting from a 

system fault, and/or lack of safe electrical margins, can lead directly to 

loss of crew. For example, unplanned activation of pyrotechnics used for 

an autonomous flight termination system (AFTS) could override an abort 

capability. That abort capability, if activated, could have safely propelled 

a capsule away from the launch vehicle to a potentially safe landing. 

Over the years, NASA and the military have learned lessons about safe 

pyrotechnic circuit design and test. However, with NASA’s recent efforts 

to move toward a development model that leans more heavily on commercial partners, these requirements have not always been directly levied 

on projects, and in some cases have been misinterpreted. Key design 

features that should be included in human spaceflight pyrotechnic systems include: two-fault tolerance, arming firing circuits only when firing is imminent, monitors to verify the state of inhibit circuits, 

fault-containment regions, electrical and physical isolation to contain faults, and knowing the electrical margins so spurious noise 

will not initiate pyrotechnics. These considerations and others are critical when repurposing commercially available flight termination systems from uncrewed to crewed launch vehicles. This work was performed by KSC, LaRC, GSFC, and JPL. NESC 

Technical Bulletins No. 23-01, No. 23-02, and Lesson Learned No. 30602. 

Notional Pyrotechnics Firing Circuit

Arm

Inhibit

Hi-Side

Inhibit

Inhibit

Monitors

Additional

Circuit 

Protections

+

-

ARM

CMD FIRE 1

CMD

FIRE 2

Telemetry

Firing Circuit

Pyro

Initiator Explosive

Device ARM & Fire

Control

Power

Source

CMD

Lo-Side

Inhibit

"As a founding member, it has been interesting to me to watch the organizational evolution of the NESC over the last 20 years. The 

NESC has become a fundamental part of the framework that supports our human spaceflight programs. They provide much needed 

independent assessment, but also can pivot to step in and provide critical in-line surge and specialty capabilities. Their 

ability to bring key subject matter experts to bear on complex problems and their independent line of funding in many 

ways are the model of what NASA engineering should be able to provide for the Agency. As Engineering Director at 

JSC, and as Orion Chief Engineer, I really value the ability to call on the NESC for assistance—people or dollars—

and they are always there to make the mission successful." 

Julie Kramer White, Director of Engineering, JSC

(NESC Discipline Expert for Mechanical Analysis, 2003-06)

"Thinking back to the earliest days of the NESC, we were initially met with a fair bit of skepticism. Would this be just another initiative 

that would fade over time? What set the NESC on its path to success was strong, visionary leadership and a visible commitment from 

Agency leaders by providing the necessary resources—not just finding but by enabling recognized, respected experts 

to join the NESC. With this foundation, it did not take long for the NESC to take hold and make a positive impact. No 

longer would a decision maker be faced with nowhere to turn to get additional data or an independent assessment.

What we perhaps did not anticipate was an even greater long-term impact of the NESC—breaking down the 

barriers across the Agency to enable more effective cooperation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing."

Dawn M. Schaible, Deputy Center Director, GRC 

(Manager of NESC Systems Engineering Office, 2003-14)

Assessments Completed in FY23

Applying Advanced CFD to 

Determine Dynamic Stability 

To return surface and atmospheric samples collected on Mars by the 

Perseverance rover, NASA will employ the Mars Sample Return Earth 

Entry System (MSR-EES), a conical capsule that will protect the samples from the heat of reentry. The EES will enter Earth’s atmosphere 

at high speed and must decelerate and land without parachutes. To 

ensure accurate landing and precise attitude at impact, the MSR-EES 

team investigated the aerodynamic and dynamic stability characteristics of the EES over a wide range of low supersonic, transonic, and subsonic Mach numbers. To assist the MSR team, the NESC performed 

complementary analyses, applying advanced computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods to predict key stability parameters. The results 

were used in trajectory simulations to assess dynamic pitch stability 

characteristics and vehicle performance, and help determine if additional design modifications might be required. The NESC team also performed dynamic forced oscillation CFD simulations and 

evaluated multiple independent methods for extracting key stability parameters from the CFD data. The team also used data from 

static and dynamic wind tunnel tests for CFD validation. The team’s findings and recommendations can also be applied to future 

vehicles. This work was performed by MSFC, LaRC, and ARC.
Reflecting on 20 Years...

20 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 21

"The safety and mission success of NASA’s missions is fundamentally based on engineering excellence. The 

NESC is vital to maintaining excellence and further growing the capabilities needed for our increasingly complex 

and challenging missions. The NESC provides world-class expertise and an independent evaluation of our most 

critical issues. Their ability to identify solution paths for acceptable risk is a significant strength of this Agency."

W. Russ DeLoach, NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance

“From my perspective, the NESC brings tremendous benefit to the Agency. Their ability to tap crucial expertise, not only within and 

across NASA, but also reaching out to industry, academia, and other government agencies for crucial subject matter expertise is 

extraordinary. I think the NESC also brings crucial leadership in conducting assessments, innovative analyses tools and processes for 

root cause and problem resolution, and a rigorous documentation process with succinct actionable findings and recommendations, 

key for communication to stakeholders. All of this is really important and has proven invaluable for safety and mission 

success in our HSF programs like CCP, Artemis, and ISS, where rigor in understanding our risks and uncertainties, 

and knowing our margins, is essential. In these busy times, I also appreciate the responsiveness and the yes, 

can-do philosophy. Just knowing you will get a yes on request and knowing the best of the best will be engaged 

eases my mind. Human spaceflight asks for a lot, and the NESC is always there for us!” 

John P. McManamen, Chief Engineer, Moon-to-Mars Program/ESDMD

(NASA Technical Fellow for Mechanical Systems, 2003-07)

Evaluation of Launch Pad Modifications 

A NASA commercial provider, which operates KSC’s Launch Complex (LC)-39A, modified the pad’s flame trench to better 

accommodate ground support equipment and surface operations on the pad. The modifications to pad geometry included 

extending the flame duct ceiling and increasing the duct length of the trench, which is unique to LC-39A in that the top is 

completely closed. A water-based sound suppression system is used in the trench to protect the launch vehicle and surrounding 

structures against ignition by injecting large amounts of water in the trench. 

NASA’s Launch Services Program requested that the NESC analyze the effects of the pad’s modifications on the pressure 

loads experienced by the provider’s launch vehicle. The interaction between the launch vehicle engine plumes and water 

system results in a highly nonlinear two-phase flow environment, which necessitated a unique approach to analysis. For the 

model simulations, teams from three NASA centers used three different CFD solvers to model the launch vehicle’s overpressure waves generated by the engines and boosters at locations on the vehicle. The models were then qualitatively validated by 

comparing simulations of the vehicle’s LC-39A launch environment to previous flight data. This work was performed by LaRC, 

ARC, MSFC, SSC, and KSC.

Flame duct ceiling extension shown on LC-39A. Credit: Google Maps

A Review of Pressurized Rover Concepts for Lunar Use 

Both NASA and an international partner have developed concepts for pressurized lunar rovers that would not only provide 

transport for astronauts living and working on the Moon but have designs flexible enough to extend their use to Mars. Critical to 

these concepts is validating the rovers’ overall mass to ensure they do not exceed mass delivery capabilities of launch vehicles 

or landers.

Systems engineering (SE) experts from the NESC SE Technical Discipline Team reviewed the conceptual designs for maturity 

and evaluated mass management, including allowances for mass growth. The team reviewed systems engineering products 

such as the concept of operations, requirements, and the mass management plans, and then assessed key design drivers, critical functions, and system responses. In addition, the team looked at subsystem descriptions for structures and mechanics, power 

and avionics, active and passive thermal control, and environmental control and life support systems. The NESC also used a 

tailored mass growth allowance table based on the ANSI/AIAA S-120A Mass Properties Control for Space Systems standard 

to evaluate the designs. Opportunities were identified for design improvements and possible mass reductions. This work was 

performed by GSFC, LaRC, KSC, JPL, MSFC, JSC, ARC, and GRC. LLIS Entry 31801. 

Illustration of a lunar pressurized rover concept. 
Reflecting on 20 Years...

Analysis of Side Hatch Loads on the Orion Crew Module 

Since 2018, the NESC has provided hydrodynamics and loads support as well as model development for the Orion Crew Module 

Uprighting System, which is a set of five airbags that inflate upon splashdown to ensure the capsule returns to the upright position 

after landing. Leveraging this prior work, the NESC completed an assessment of the crew module side hatch loads, which are 

driven by acceleration of the crew module in the open ocean. During nominal and off-nominal landing and recovery scenarios, 

the hatch must operate and remain open for crew egress while exposed to waves. Understanding and predicting the loads the 

hatch will encounter in various sea states will help ensure it will open properly for crew egress after splashdown. 

The NESC conducted dynamic analysis of the Artemis I and II upright 

configurations in relevant wave environments to provide the side-hatch 

team with accelerations at the crew module’s center-of-gravity and sidehatch locations. This involved enhancing an existing capsule model, 

comparing the results with data collected during an underway recovery 

test, and evaluating Orion-defined wave spectra for use as model 

inputs. The team provided the Orion Program with acceleration profiles 

across the wave environments and crew module mass properties along 

with recommendations for identifying design wave events that drive 

peak loads. This work was performed by KSC, JSC, MSFC, General 

Dynamics, and The Aerospace Corporation. NASA/TM 20230004154. 

Updating NASA Maintainability Standards for Missions Beyond LEO 

Throughout much of NASA’s history of human spaceflight, maintenance was performed by trained mechanics at depot facilities 

on the ground after vehicles returned from missions. The launch of the ISS brought space-vehicle maintenance into a new era 

of in-mission maintenance by astronauts under the instruction of flight controllers. However, as NASA moves to crewed missions 

beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), updated system-maintainability standards will be necessary to support a more autonomous crew 

and eliminate risks for crew health and safety that will come with communication and resupply delays in the extreme environments of deep space. 

In partnership with Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer and the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NESC 

studied the maintainability state-of-practice to identify potential gaps in applicable NASA standards. They also reviewed related 

standards from government agencies and industry as well as reports and guidebooks, lessons learned from past space missions, 

crew comments, and other maintainability and maintenance materials. In addition, numerous subject matter experts were interviewed on current maintenance practices and challenges, latest design trends in maintainability, and the demands of performing 

maintenance in extreme environments with a small, isolated, or remotely operating team. 

The study resulted in multiple new requirements and revisions proposed for NASA-STD-3001 Volume 2, NASA Space Flight 

Human System Standard: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health. In addition, updates were proposed for NASASTD-8729.1 NASA Reliability and Maintainability Standard for Space Flight and Support Systems and content was drafted for a 

guidebook to provide additional information on the process of designing systems for maintainability. This work was performed by 

GSFC, ARC, JSC, KSC, and NASA HQ. NASA/TM 20230011306. 

22 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 23

"The Office of Chief Health and Medical Officer works closely with the NESC to solve human health and 

performance engineering issues. Being able to collaborate with NESC technical expertise and combine it with 

health and medical expertise has been invaluable in ensuring that NASA missions are safe and productive". 

Dr. James D. Polk, NASA Chief Health and Medical Officer 

Notional map of the domains the NESC assessment team investigated by mission factors

including mission duration, resupply, and communication delay with support teams.

• Large, highly trained, specialized 

 on-board team for problem solving, 

 resolution, maintenance

• Expertise and resupply from ground

 (base) only rarely

• Small, highly trained on-board crew 

 for maintenance 

• Expertise and resupply from ground

 (base) routinely

• Specialized EVA-type repairs

1000

100

10

10000

1-way Comm Delay (sec)

Evac Delay/Resupply (hours)

Mission Duration (hours)

hours

mins

Mars Base

Lunar Base

10000

1000

100

10

years

months

weeks

days

10 100 1000 10000 100000

1

hours days weeks months years decades

• Large-scale, ground-based anomaly

 resolution and maintenance

• Minimal onboard corrective maintenance

• Highly trained ground-based technicians

 (specialized skills) and crew (general skills)

Submarine Deployment

South Pole Station

Carrier Deployment

Artemis I Orion crew module in upright position after splashdown.
The new guidance recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in 

cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources 

and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, criteria were defined for “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturers (ILPM)” who have 

best practices for “zero defects” parts quality, reliability, and workmanship, and a willingness to share their quality and reliability 

data. Also defined was an “Established COTS Part,” which included criteria such as a stable production processes, automatic 

manufacturing, and 100% electrical testing of each part. When COTS parts need to be used, Established COTS Parts from ILPMs 

are recommended for all missions to ensure parts meet mission, environment, application, and lifetime requirements. The NASA 

Electronic Parts and Packaging Program is currently working on the implementation details of the guidance. This work was performed by LaRC, ARC, JSC, MSFC, GSFC, JPL, KSC, GRC, and OSMA. NASA/TM 20205011579, NASA/TM 20220018183, 

LLIS Entry 23502.

24 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 2 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 3 25

Priority 2 In-Progress Assessments:

• Landing Risk Assessment

• Expansion of Check Cases for 6DOF Simulation

• Lunar Suit Tribocharging Risk 

• MSR Orbiting Sample Model Review

• M&S of MAV Ascent Phase of Flight

• Self-Reacting Friction Stir Weld Anomalies 

• Material Flammability in Lunar Gravity 

• SLS Core Stage Thick Plate 

• Space-Shielding Radiation Dosage Code Evaluation 

and Identification

• Dragonfly Dynamic Stability

• Hot-Fire Testing of 5 lbf Class Reaction Control 

System Thrusters

• Exploration Systems Exterior Lighting Design 

Guidance

• Material Sensitivities to N2O4/MON Exposure

• Oxidizer Tank Design and Qualification

• COPV Helium Tank w/Large Grain Aluminum Alloy

• Gateway PPE COPV Damage Tolerance 

Life Support 

• Frangible Joint Technical Support to SLS

• Energy Modulator Webbing Shredding Testing

• MAV Buffet/Aeroacoustics Numerical Simulations

• COPV Damage Tolerance Life by Analysis Risk 

• CFD Assess. of Ascent Abort Axial Force Anomaly

• Alternate Helium Pressure Control Component

• Trade Space Analysis: Balancing Crew and Mission 

Design Parameters

• Tube Test Coupon for COPV Mechanics

• Anaerobic Hydrogen Detection Sensor

• Qualification of Radiographic NDE Techniques

• Post-Flight Reference Radiation Environments

• Midpoint Monitoring in Batteries

• Material Compatibility and EAC Data for Metals in 

Hypergolic Propellants

• Hydrodynamics Support for Orion CM Uprighting 

System

• Orion Titanium Hydrazine Tank Weld 

• CPV Working Group

• Stress Ruptures COPV

• Independent M&S for CCP EDL

• SLS Aerosciences Consultation and Review

• Reaction Wheel Performance for NASA Missions

• Exploration Systems Independent M&S

• Peer Review of MPCV Aerodynamic/Aerothermal 

Database Models and Methods

Priority 2 In-Progress Support Activities:

• MSR EES Release Engineering Peer Review

• Moon to Mars Artemis II Critical Event

• Spin Chute Design Consultation for Sustainable 

Flight Demonstrator

• Next Gen Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator 

Project 

• Roman Outer Barrel Assembly 

• SLS B1B FSW CDR Review Team 

• Dragonfly Replan Scenarios

• Tape Flammability Risk

• ISS Urine Pretreat Tank NDE and Fracture 

• MEGANE Instrument Gamma-Ray Spectrometer 

• Farside Seismic Suite Project Loop Heat Pipe 

• Commercial LEO Development Program

• Vulcan Centaur Mishap Investigation

• Roman Wide Field Instrument Materials Analysis 

• X-59 Fuel Tank Ignition 

• OSAM-1 Tiger Team

• CO2 Removal Expertise for JAXA I-Hab 

• Systems Engineering SME and MBSE Support to 

Advanced Capabilities Division

• DaVinci Mission Technical Support

• MPCV Flywheel Exercise Device Acoustic Reduction

• CCP Technical Support

• Friction Stir Welding support

• CCP Design Certification Review

• Orion Mass Gauging Development Support

• Display Management Computer Reset Anomaly

• Composite Consult for New Launch Vehicle Application

• Lunar Ground Testing Guidebook Support

• Psyche Mission RAD750-V3 

• OSAM-1 Assembly Joint Mechanism Test 

• SubC Safety Review 

• Lunar Glove Thermal and Dust Risk Mitigation

• Contamination Control for Carruthers Observatory 

• LSP Frangible Joint Support 

• Mars Sample Return MMOD Protection Review

• Space Charging of Ocean Color Instrument Rotating 

Mechanism

• Orion, NDSB2, and Gateway Material Electrical 

Properties Support

• Parachute Flight/Ground Tests & Packing/Rigging 

Priority 2 Completed Support Activities:

• MAV Flight Test Risk Assessment

• ESDMD and SOMD Facilities Review for Future 

Architecture Elements

• EGS Mobile Launcher 2 Structure Design

• SLS Block 1 ISPE Crew CDR 

• Refractory Concrete Subject Matter Expertise

• Mars Ascent Vehicle Preliminary Design Review 

• Mobile Launcher 2 Potential Cost Drivers

• Lunar Landing Plume Surface Interaction TIM

• Artemis I Supplemental Parachute Imagery 

• HALO CDR SE SME Support

• Psyche FSW and GNC SME Support 

• Mars Sample Return CCRS-OS Charging 

• Roman Radiation and Charging 

• HLS GNC Landing System Sensor Milestone Review 

• xEVA Design and Construction Adjudication 

• SLS Block 1B CDR 

• ESCAPADE Propulsion System Trade

• Orion Reusability Evaluation 

• SLS SE&I Programmatic Review

• HLS Avionics Fault Tolerance 

• DART Solar Array Loads 

• DOLILU Certification Review

• Operational Modal Analysis of Dynamic Rollout 

Test Data

• Sensor Anomaly Investigation 

• CCP Launch Vehicle Support

• SLS Design Certification Review

• Bond Verification Plan for Orion Heatshield Design

Understanding Software Defect

Density in Risk Analysis 

As an aid to supporting software risk analyses, the NESC collected software defect data across multiple NASA programs and projects including 

the ISS, Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch System, Mars 

2020 and others. The aim was to characterize the quantity and severity 

of software defects and assess whether a given number of defects could 

be considered "in family" or "out of family" at key points in a program's 

life cycle with an emphasis on human-rated first flights and early phases. 

The NESC team found that projects collect and handle defects differently, 

even using differing definitions or categories of severity. Despite this, the 

team was able to compare problem removal rates and efficiency, defect severities, defect closures over time, and defect density for the final 

build of software prior to launch. As a result of their analyses, the team 

made multiple recommendations. NASA should determine a consistent 

approach for collecting defect data across its programs/projects, update 

NASA-HDBK-2203, NASA Software Engineering, to provide additional 

guidance on the use of tools to track workflow versus defect resolution, 

and develop an Agency-wide defect-data repository to advance the software discipline. This work was performed by JSC, GRC, MSFC, GSFC, 

and LaRC. 

The NESC team compared the software defect 

densities leading up to the initial operation of 

multiple NASA and commercial systems.

Priority 3: Known Problems

Not Being Addressed by Any Project

Assessments Completed in FY23

Investigation of Shuttle Enterprise

Landing Gear Fracture 

The Space Shuttle orbiter, Enterprise, now owned by the Intrepid Sea, Air & 

Space Museum, resides on public display on the deck of the retired aircraft 

carrier USS Intrepid, moored at Pier 86 on the Hudson River in New York City. 

When the left main landing gear (MLG) piston failed in late 2018, the NESC 

assisted in the investigation to help the museum determine whether the right 

MLG was at risk of similar failure and evaluate the display environment prior 

to the reopening of the exhibit. The NESC team conducted hardware visual 

and nondestructive evaluation inspections, examined the display, and provided quick feedback for the museum. This work was performed by LaRC, KSC, 

MSFC, ARC, JSC, and AFRC.

Top: Depiction of MLG display loading before and after fracture (right). 

Bottom: Enterprise on display at the Intrepid Museum. 

Established COTS parts are a subset of parts from an ILPM.

An ILPM is a subset of COTS manufacturers.

New Agency Guidance for COTS Use

Increasingly, NASA programs and commercial partners are incorporating commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electrical, electronic, and 

electromechanical (EEE) parts in their missions to meet challenging size, weight, power, and performance requirements. NASA standards consider COTS parts as non-standard parts, therefore they are 

subjected to MIL-SPEC screening and lot acceptance from each procured parts lot. In the past two decades, many top-tier commercial 

part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can provide reliable 

parts. In appropriate applications, COTS can offer performance and 

supply availability advantages, while careful review and a thorough 

understanding of manufacturer specifications and verification of reliability for space application are required.

Parts from ILPM

Established COTS

Parts from ILPMs

(Recommended for all 

missions when COTS 

parts selected)

COTS PARTS
26 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 3 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 3 27

Unconservatism of LEFM Analysis Post-Autofrettage 

In 2020, an NESC team of structures and materials 

experts found a lack of conservatism in the damage 

tolerance analyses conducted on COPV liners using 

linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), particularly in understanding the influence of autofrettage (AF). During AF, a COPV is subjected to high 

pressures to compress the inner surfaces, making 

them less susceptible to operational stresses later. 

The team employed testing, finite element analysis 

validated by test data, and NASGRO simulations 

(computer programs that analyze fracture and fatigue crack growth) to study crack growth in elastic 

cycles with and without the AF cycle. They used 

strains and elastic cycles that enveloped typical 

COPV stress ratios. 

In verifying damage tolerance life, the team found 

that separating the AF cycle from subsequent elastic cycles in LEFM analysis led to unconservative 

life predictions. Cracks remained open during compressive cycles after AF and allowed for a larger 

stress range to contribute to crack growth in each 

subsequent elastic cycle. Currently, ANSI/AIAA S-081B Space Systems-Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels provides 

baseline requirements for COPV damage tolerance analyses but does not account for this detrimental influence of the AF cycle. 

As a result, the team provided corrections to NASGRO that make predictions less unconservative. See related article on page 55. 

This work was performed by GRC, LaRC, JSC/WSTF, KSC, and JPL. NASA/TM-20230013348.

Ceramic Capacitor Microstructure Analysis Tool Development 

Latent defects within multilayer ceramic capacitors 

(MLCC) have resulted in multiple space mission failures and episodic failures during system integration 

and test. Defects include delaminations that can 

develop into cracks, which can become conductive 

over time, and are characterized by significantly reduced insulation resistance—potentially resulting 

in increased leakage current. Because hundreds of 

capacitors can be used on a single circuit card assembly, part reliability is a crucial factor for mission 

success. 

The literature establishes a clear relationship between grain size and ceramic fracture toughness, 

the latter of which controls the propensity for ceramic cracking. The NESC was requested to study the 

existing analysis tools available to evaluate MLCC 

microstructure and produce less subjective, faster, 

more accurate, and repeatable ceramic grain-size 

measurements and grain-size distribution data. 

The study team found that an electron backscatter 

diffraction system (EBDS) worked well for quickly 

quantifying grain-size distributions. However, EBDS 

showed no significant difference in grain-size distributions among the evaluated specimens, which 

included “problem” lots associated with instrument failures on NASA missions. Nevertheless, the EBDS enabled rapid quantification of grain-size distributions and potential relation to capacitor reliability, which would benefit NASA and the overall space 

community when investigating capacitor failure root causes. The team recommended using EBDS to investigate future capacitor lots to develop a library of grain-size distribution data for future reference. This work was performed by LaRC and GSFC. 

NASA/TM 20230004147.

Simulating Crew-Seat Landing Loads for Soyuz Vehicles 

Before the SpaceX Crew Dragon Capsule began flying 

NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, U.S. and Russian 

crews traveled in Soyuz vehicles. Unlike Dragon’s water landings, Soyuz vehicles touch down on land using 

a combination of a parachute and soft-landing engines 

to reduce the vehicle descent velocity. Risk-prediction 

tools like anthropomorphic test devices (ATD) and the 

Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion help NASA estimate vehicle seat loads experienced by crew during 

landings. But these loads data were not available for 

the Soyuz. To better understand those loads, an NESC 

team of human factors and biomechanics modeling experts developed an FEM of the Soyuz descent module 

and landing environment. 

The team generated a semi-deformable model of the 

Soyuz module and interior components to capture the 

acceleration loads transferred to the occupant compartment during landing. Human surrogate ATD models and biomechanically representative human body 

models were incorporated into the Soyuz seat models. 

The assessment team then simulated generalized landing-condition distributions to identify the effects of landing on vehicle/seat response. This work was performed 

by ARC, LaRC, JSC, and Texas A&M University. Soyuz decent module landing (inset) and firing of 

soft-landing rockets to reduce landing loads.

TFE Offers an Advancement in Shock Prediction 

Accurately predicting shock response is a top priority for NASA and industry. For aerospace projects, assessing the shock environment is critical in determining hardware susceptibility to shock failure and qualifying the hardware for predicted shock environments. Several methods have been attempted over the past decades, but none have been fully adopted. This prompted the 

NESC to evaluate the use of finite element analysis (FEA) in shock prediction and resulted in the Transient Finite Energy (TFE) 

Predictor methodology. 

Shock environments are defined in terms of the drive-point acceleration shock response spectrum (SRS), but the shock force 

is not readily available. The NESC team noted the that the drivepoint acceleration can be complex, while the underlying shock 

force is simple, leading to a simpler model of the force. This methodology attempts to construct a TFE forcing function (FF) that replicates the drive-point absolute acceleration SRS to within ±3 dB. 

The TFE FF can then be applied to the drive point and predict the 

SRS throughout the system, whether it is a finite element model 

(FEM) based or test based (i.e., tap test). Though a fundamental departure from prior shock prediction methodologies, the TFE 

validation work, which used NASA’s ShockSat test data, met the 

SRS prediction accuracy of ±6 dB for FEM-based and ±3 dB for 

test-based TFE methods. This work was performed by GSFC, 

ASD, LaRC, and JPL. NASA/TM 202300110680, NESC Technical 

Bulletin No. 23-03. TFE prediction against actual data from a satellite model. 

(C) Manual tracing of grains (dark areas) on 

a scanning electron microscope image. (D) 

EBDS image. ImageJ software can analyze the 

EBDS image and provide statistics of colored 

grain regions to dark void regions.

(A) Infrared image showing hot spot during

powered test. (B) Electron microscope image 

showing delamination along the electrode plate 

associated with a crack (red arrows), which 

correlates with the IR region identified in A.
Illustration of multiple science instruments operating from the lunar surface.

Unique Science from the Moon in the Artemis Era 

Since the beginning of the space age, the Moon has been proposed as a platform for astronomical observations. With Artemis 

missions returning humans to the lunar surface in the 2020s, there has been renewed interest in using the Moon as a location 

for studies ranging from observing the solar system to studying the early universe. The NESC brought stakeholders together 

for an interdisciplinary workshop to explore leveraging the Artemis era infrastructure to conduct unique science experiments 

and observations from the lunar surface. They addressed maximizing return on investments, advancing synergistic approaches 

between human and robotic exploration, and identifying and addressing key engineering challenges and risks including lunar 

dust; communications/navigation; preserving the radio-quiet far-side environment; extreme thermal conditions; power generation/

storage; and lighting. 

Key takeaways included developing sustainable and synergistic science and human exploration programs by designing future 

observatories or instruments deployed on the lunar surface using the Hubble Space Telescope model, where standards were 

followed to make the hardware astronaut friendly for assembly and repair. And early-stage integration of decadal-level science 

requirements into the Artemis Program would be key to leveraging the lunar surface as a platform for science opportunities. This 

work was performed by GSFC, JSC, WSTF, GRC, KSC, MSFC, ARC, NASA Headquarters, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics 

Laboratory, University of Colorado, Endless Frontiers, and Space Science Solutions. NASA/TM 20220017053. 

28 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 3 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 4 29

Priority 3 In-Progress Assessments:

• Nuclear Electric Propulsion Technology Maturation Plan Non-Advocate Review 

• SpaceVPX Interoperability Open Standard 

• NASA's Meteor Shower Forecasting Sustainability 

• NASA Space Observatory Precision Pointing Benchmark Problem Development 

• Phased Array Microphone System Development 

• AACT Risk Reduction Project - Safe Life Category 

• AACT Risk Reduction Project - in Situ Monitoring Category 

• AACT Risk Reduction Project - Metallurgy Category 

• Assessment of Degradation in Microfabricated Detectors and MEMS Devices 

• NESC COG Technology Development 

• Thermophysical Properties of Liquid TEA-TEB 

• Test and Modeling to Predict Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator Failures 

• Characterization of Internal Insulation Thermal Performance 

• Occupant Protection Testing 

• Parachute Reefing Line Cutter Modification and Qualification 

• Southern Hemisphere Meteoroid Environment Measurements 

Priority 3 In-Progress Support Activities: 

• Rocket Lab Triboelectric Support 

• Review of Propulsion Motor Design for ARMD 

• Cryogenic Fluid Management Support to DARPA 

• Sandia National Lab Cooperative Agreement 

• NASA-STD-6001 Revision C Variable Investigation Testing 

• Human System Interactions in Closed Breathing Systems 

• EPIC/Athena Assessment Group 

Priority 3 Completed Support Activities: 

• GSFC SE Future Capability Independent Review Team 

• TALOS Project Venting 

• Low Temperature Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Measurement Capability 

• OSAM-1 Human Factors Support 

Priority 4: Work to Avoid 

Potential Future Problems

Assessments Completed in FY23

Updating Measurement of the ISS Charging Environment 

The Floating Potential Measurement Unit (FPMU), a suite of four plasma instruments, has operated on the ISS since 2006 to 

monitor the charging environment around the station for astronaut safety during extravehicular activities (EVA). Additionally, data 

from the FPMU Langmuir and impedance probes also proves valuable to the science community in studying the LEO plasma 

environment. Operating well beyond its intended life span, the FPMU’s algorithms had not been optimized to maximize its full 

potential for providing science-quality data, and age-related issues needed to be addressed. 

The NESC brought in subject matter experts from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University to work with the MSFC FPMU data analysis 

team to help improve the data quality and instrument utility. The goals were to modify the algorithms to improve the quality of 

estimates of plasma density, plasma temperature, and spacecraft potential parameters, and use the algorithms to evaluate FPMU 

data for significant events. After extensive analysis, the team developed a modified algorithm that corrected erroneous artifacts in 

the data and provided estimates consistent with ground-based incoherent scatter radars and the FPMU’s coexisting impedance 

probe. Continued evaluation and monitoring should ensure the health of all FPMU components and that the FPMU data quality does 

not degrade with time. This work was performed by MSFC and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. NASA/TM-20230013386. 

FPMU mounted to an ISS truss. 

Floating Point Probe

Plasma Impedance Probe

Narrow Langmuir Probe Wide Langmuir Probe
30 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 4 Assessments & Support Activities - Priority 5 31

Example of gold wire bonds. Wire bonds transfer electrical signals to/from an integrated circuit’s external terminals and the internal microcircuits. 

Priority 5: Work to Improve a System

Assessments Completed in FY23

Priority 4 In-Progress Assessments:

• Design/Test of Battleship Hypergolic Propellant Thruster 

• Lessons Learned on DART NEXT-C Ion Engine 

• BON GCR Model Improvements 

• Wire and Wire Bundle Ampacity Testing and Analysis 

• Solderless Interconnects and Interposers 

Priority 4 In-Progress Support Activities:

• Parachute Design Guidelines Revision and Development 

Priority 5 In-Progress Assessments:

• Updates and Modernization of the CEA Code 

• Frangible Joint Working Group 

• NASA Quantum Sensing Capability 

Determining Reliability of

EEE Parts Copper Wire Bonds

for Space Programs 

Economics as well as the thermal and electrical properties of copper wire have driven the replacement of gold 

wire bonds in the majority of commercial semiconductor 

devices, especially for new and emerging technologies. 

Aside from being more economical than gold, copper 

has a 25% lower electrical resistivity, 30% higher thermal conductivity, 75% higher tensile strength, and 45% 

higher modulus of elasticity. But there are concerns with 

their use in high-reliability applications with long-mission 

lifetimes. To date, no military standard for copper-bondwire qualification or standards for destructive physical 

analysis and plastic encapsulated microcircuit construction analysis have been developed. 

This knowledge gap prompted the NESC to look at 

bond-technology data for copper and other materials and

determine the reliability of copper-wire bonds. A team of 

avionics experts performed a combination of construction analysis, mechanical testing, environmental testing, 

and statistical analysis to determine the reliability of

copper-wire-bonded parts at the part and assembly 

levels. They used mission, environment, application, and 

lifetime (MEAL) conditions and existing MEAL projection 

models to determine test conditions that encompassed 

the widest range of NASA mission conditions. Based on results for the parts tested, they found the reliability of copper wire 

bonds to be comparable to gold bonds. The team also developed screening and lot acceptance testing guidelines for evaluating

copper-wire bonds in plastic parts for a range of NASA flight conditions and mission risk classifications. This work was performed 

by LaRC, JPL, GSFC, JSC, KSC, WFF, MSFC, and OSMA. NASA/TM 20230014536.

171 μm

43 μm 52 μm

140 μm 47 μm

469 μm

Copernicus OpenFrames 3D Graphics Implementation.

Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability and Component Sharing 

Over the years, NASA Centers have developed flight mechanics tools to support their own unique goals and missions. From 

Copernicus and General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) to the Mission-Analysis Operations Navigation Toolkit Environment 

(Monte), the tools provide maneuver planning, orbit determination, error analysis, trade studies, and flight products for a variety 

of spaceflight regimes and mission lifecycles. Because each tool was tailored for a specific center and the missions it supported, 

each had variations in capability, and as such, could not easily share data, models, or components.

In 2018, the NESC began analysis of a framework that could connect the 

tools and allow users to leverage the strengths of each with a goal of increasing Agency efficiency and reducing costs. An enterprise system of systems 

using application programming interfaces (API) and plugins was developed 

to enable interoperability between tools. The team focused on high-level task 

development areas including GMAT-Monte, GMAT-Copernicus, and MonteCopernicus interoperability. The newly developed functionality between 

these commonly used tools enables solutions to more complex trajectory design problems than can be accommodated with each individual tool by itself. 

Use cases developed under this effort are available and demonstrate the 

new interfaces, plug-ins, graphics updates, and trajectory transfer features. 

This work was performed by MSFC, GSFC, LaRC, JSC, and JPL. NASA/TM 

20230006507, NESC Technical Bulletin No. 23-05. System-of-systems approach to interfacing Copernicus, Monte, and GMAT functionality.

Updated GMAT using Coprenicus OpenFrames 3D Graphics Implementation.

1.00mm
NESC AT

THE CENTERS

Meet the engineers and scientists 

who lend their expertise to NESC 

technical activities. 

972 CENTER EMPLOYEES

SUPPORTED NESC WORK

IN FY23

ARC

AFRC

GRC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

MSFC

SSC

82

15

70

103

98

106

49

276

140

33

32 NESC at the Centers
Ames Research Center Armstrong Flight Research Center

Dr. Sarah D'Souza

As a member of two NASA Technical Discipline Teams (TDT), 

Dr. Sarah D’Souza brings her expertise to Flight Mechanics, 

where her focus is on overall vehicle dynamics, and to Guidance, Navigation, and Control, where that focus shifts to the 

mechanics and algorithms needed to steer that vehicle. She 

finds her work with both TDTs vital to her job as the ARC Deputy System Manager for Orion’s Thermal Protection System. 

“Both TDTs have people with many different viewpoints who 

don't shy away from sharing them, which is really important. 

It's the only way we flesh out things properly, explore all the 

avenues, and debunk what isn't right. That lets us find the path 

that makes sense for solving a problem.” 

That team diversity is a fundamental tenet of the NESC, which 

Dr. D'Souza and her Orion team have been working with to find 

the root cause of a heatshield anomaly with analyses, scanning, 

and arcjet testing to find solutions for future Artemis missions. 

“I can't think of a better job than working for Orion, to be part 

of a project where we understand there’s no cutting corners. 

Human beings are going to be on the next Artemis mission. It 

is exciting and at the same time, a great responsibility to make 

sure we do this right.” 

Dr. Jing Li

Dr. Jing Li, a member of the Sensors and Instrumentation TDT, 

is a leading expert in the development and implementation of 

new sensor technologies. Her expertise also includes sensormodule miniaturization, where she works to make sensors 

smaller, lighter, and low power. Her background and contributions were integral to the NESC’s efforts to verify the testing 

standard for carbon dioxide (CO2) in extravehicular activity 

suits. Because Dr. Li builds chemical sensors, including those 

for CO2 detection, she had the first-hand experience and indepth knowledge required for this assessment. She built her 

own custom sensors, which allowed successful verification of 

test data, and supported the design and build of a unique test 

apparatus. In addition, she developed new laboratory procedures to support testing and provided detailed laboratory notes 

and data analysis that were crucial to the success of the effort. 

“This was my first NESC assessment, and the work was very 

complicated. I worked online as well as in the lab at JSC.” 

Dr. Li is also responsible for organizing the Sensors and Instrument TDT monthly webinars in which she brings in speakers from other centers or universities to discuss all aspects of 

sensor development. “I enjoy the chance to meet many people 

from different disciplines and different centers. I learn so much 

from them.”

Daniel Jones

Mr. Daniel S. Jones is an aerospace engineer in the Aerodynamics & Propulsion Branch at AFRC. After working as 

a mechanical draftsman/designer in the private sector for 11 

years, he joined NASA in 1999. Since that time, his primary 

duties have been focused on flight testing, flight research, 

and ensuring airworthiness of advanced propulsion systems. 

While at NASA AFRC, Mr. Jones has contributed to several 

high-visibility projects including the X-43A/Hyper-X, the Orion 

Pad Abort 1, and the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Test Data Portal. For the past seven years, he has been 

a member of the NESC Propulsion Technical Discipline Team 

(TDT), where he participates in monthly and annual meetings 

with propulsion experts across the Agency and the country. 

“The TDT meetings have been incredibly valuable, not only 

for growth within my expertise, but also to provide insight for 

potential collaborative opportunities,” he said. He finds the 

face-to-face meetings as particularly beneficial to build rapport 

with counterparts at other NASA centers and to understand 

capabilities across the Agency. “The two most important roles 

for me within the TDT are to look for growth opportunities for 

members within my branch and to look for opportunities where 

AFRC can contribute to Agency-level goals.” 

Francisco Peña

As part of the AFRC Fiber Optic Sensing System (FOSS) 

Team, Mr. Francisco Peña assisted the Commercial Crew Program in analyzing strains on a structure undergoing testing. 

“We installed nearly 300 fiber optic sensors to help identify 

strains at locations where two different materials came together,” he said. “The FOSS allows us to make measurements at 

half-inch intervals, so we can cover a good portion of the surface of a structure. In this case, measurements couldn’t be 

made with a camera system, and to get the distributed strain 

or stress measurements needed, fiber optics was the only 

technology that would work in that specific scenario where the 

line of sight to the structure was obscured.” 

Mr. Peña collected and plotted strain data from the fiber optics, 

which gave a good visualization of where the highest stresses 

were occurring on the structure. He and the FOSS team have 

supported several NESC assessments, particularly in cases 

where conventional strain gage and thermocouple technology 

cannot provide the data needed. “We are constantly making 

improvements to the FOSS to reduce measurement uncertainty, and it evolves depending on the mission we are supporting. 

If we don’t already have a technique a customer is looking for, 

then we will develop it.” 

The Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) provided engineering technical expertise to multiple, highprofile NESC activities across the Agency, industry, and the Department of Defense (DoD). AFRC pilots and 

life support specialists supported an NESC task to train the DoD on how to use pilot-worn instrumentation 

systems, which are essential to acquire critically important pilot breathing parameters in flight. Specifically, 

they assisted their counterparts and life support engineers on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Integrated Test Force, 

and the new USAF Trainer, the T-7A Red Hawk program, all at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. These efforts were in 

direct support of the nation’s efforts to better understand the underlying reasons for physiological episodes in the DoD 

fleet of tactical aircraft. Additionally, AFRC engineers and instrumentation specialists from the Fiber Optic Sensing 

System team designed the instrumentation layout for a large scale cryogenic tank, installed the sensor array, and 

supported drop-tower testing at Dugway Proving Grounds, UT. 

The Ames Research Center (ARC) supports a diverse suite of capabilities for the NESC, including 

advanced computing, software, aerodynamics testing, intelligent systems, aerothermal/entry, descent, 

and landing (EDL) modeling, thermal protection materials, and human factors research. Technical Fellows 

for Aerosciences and Human Factors are both resident at ARC. Personnel at ARC are represented on 18 

NESC Technical Discipline Teams and supported 22 independent technical assessments and studies including: 

Independent EDL Modeling for Commercial Crew Program, Verification of Testing Standard for CO2 Partial Pressure 

in Extravehicular Activity Suits, and Orion Crew Module Heatshield Avocat Char Investigation. This year’s profiled 

individuals participated directly in these assessments and demonstrate the diversity of expertise present at ARC. 

Kenneth R. Hamm, Jr., NESC Chief Engineer

82 ARC employees supported NESC work in FY23

Dr. W. Lance Richards, NESC Chief Engineer 

15 AFRC employees supported NESC work in FY23

34 NESC at the Centers NESC at the Centers 35
Glenn Research Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. Daniel L. Dietrich 

Technology developed by Dr. Daniel Dietrich was key to helping 

the NESC understand how pilots interact with the breathing systems of their high-performance aircraft. A combustion researcher by training, Dr. Dietrich is uniquely familiar with how oxygen 

(O2) is consumed to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which is 

also important to human physiology. He helped develop a portable monitor to measure human metabolic function in ground and 

spaceflight environments using O2 and CO2 sensors he created. That technology was ultimately used in several high-visibility 

breathing studies the NESC performed to assist the U.S. Navy 

and Air Force understand the cause of physiologic episodes in 

pilots of their F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft fleets. 

“For the first time we could instrument a pilot to measure physiologic states in flight and the impacts of the flight environment 

on the pilot,” he said. “The O2 and CO2 sensors evolved from 

an effort to understand whether a candle could burn in a purely 

buoyant-free (microgravity) environment, and from there we 

thought we could develop an instrument that could measure 

metabolic function. What started as a study in understanding 

whether a steady candle flame could exist in the absence of 

gravity ends up examining how fighter pilots breath in tactical 

aircraft. It was rewarding to bring technology we’ve developed 

at Glenn to a practical implementation.” 

Dr. Josh Stuckner 

Dr. Josh Stuckner applied data analytics and machine learning 

to assist the NESC in finding the root cause of friction stir weld 

anomalies on fuel tanks. “We had a team of excellent subject 

matter experts and managers working as a whole to figure out 

the issue and recommend solutions,” he said. As part of his role 

to design the set of experiments, he employed a space-filling 

design that required fewer tests but provided more valuable information on a much wider range of settings. This let the team 

identify how best to control the weld parameters, like spin and 

speed, that were needed to generate better friction stir welds. 

“What I really enjoyed about this project was being part of an 

investigation that affects the NASA mission now. My typical 

work is long-term materials research and developing tools to 

speed up materials research, which takes a while to have an 

impact. Even now it can take up to 20 years for a new material 

to go from being discovered in the lab to having commercial 

viability. So, it was great to apply all these techniques I’ve been 

learning and developing to a project that impacts NASA now, 

and then get really good results with them. I felt I was part of 

the NASA you hear about when you’re a kid.” 

Jonathan Boblitt 

Programmable logic devices (PLDs) have become commonplace in avionics, but 

no standard exists across NASA for their development. As the PLD community 

lead with expertise in field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), a type of PLD, Mr. 

Jonathan Boblitt has been working with the NESC to develop consistent guidance 

for their development. “An FPGA standard will go a long way in making sure that 

NASA and Goddard produce quality FPGA designs consistently across all the projects,” he said. His work on this assessment also led to his involvement in an NESC 

investigation of an FPGA anomaly. “My team and I peer reviewed an extensive 

fault tree and analyzed several FPGA designs to find a cause and solution to the 

anomaly,” said Mr. Boblitt. “When I am working with people across all the NASA 

centers, there's just always something new to learn. I love working the issues and 

being able to tackle these large problems.” 

Dr. Ari Brown 

As part of the Detector Systems Branch at GSFC, Dr. Ari Brown has often observed 

degradation of the thin metallic films he uses to build microfabricated detectors and 

microelectromechanical systems devices. “These degradations usually reveal themselves in a discoloration of the metal, which can increase electrical resistance or 

other issues that make these components unusable for our applications,” he said. 

Long thought to be the result of galvanic corrosion, Dr. Brown worked with the NESC 

to finally find the root cause of the problem as opposed to costly workarounds usually 

employed by projects. Their investigation revealed unwanted materials, which largely took the form of metal oxides, were causing the degradation issues, which could 

be solved with simple mitigations. “The NESC takes a scientific approach to understanding the problem and finding a mitigation strategy based on analytical evidence. 

They have an unbiased perspective of the issue, and that’s invaluable, because 

even within projects there can be strong biases.”

Beth Paquette

Ms. Beth Paquette is leading NESC efforts to gather avionics packaging best practices that will lead to the development of guidelines and processes for the Agency. 

She has been talking with packaging engineers across the centers. “The lessons 

learned we are collecting, especially from our more experienced engineers, is often 

knowledge that has never been written down,” she said. “This also gives us a better 

understanding of what packaging looks like from center to center, because we all 

have different ways of operating based on the missions we support.” Ms. Paquette 

also leads communities of practice including Avionics Packaging and Additive Manufacturing of Electronics. “For the last few years, my focus has been on research 

and development, like advanced packaging technologies and electronics additive 

manufacturing. We've been doing testing and working through the best practices 

for 3D printing, from the design phase to creating a tool path to the actual printing.”

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) supported a wide range of NESC work including 57 

assessments, numerous support activities, and 18 Technical Discipline Teams. Key activities included 

Mars Sample Return (MSR) Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris Protection Review, MSR Orbiting Sample 

Models Review, MSR UV-C expert consulting, Galvanic Corrosion in Microfabricated Detectors and MEMs 

Devices, Avionics Packaging Engineering Processes and Best Practices, Psyche Independent Review Board 

and Psyche RAD750-V3, Use of Commercial-off-the-Shelf Guidance for NASA Missions, EEE Parts Copper Wire 

Bonds for Space Programs, and Verification of Testing Standard for CO2 Partial Pressure in EVA Suits. NASA 

Technical Fellows for Systems Engineering and Mechanical Systems, and the NESC Integration Office liaison for 

SMD, STMD, and ARMD, reside at GSFC.

Robert S. Jankovsky, NESC Chief Engineer

70 GRC employees supported NESC work in FY23

Carmel A. Conaty, NESC Chief Engineer

 103 GSFC employees supported NESC work in FY23

36 NESC at the Centers NESC at the Centers 37

The Glenn Research Center (GRC) provided a broad spectrum of technical expertise to 36 NESC technical 

assessments/activities and 19 NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). These activities supported all 

NASA Mission Directorates and several cross-cutting discipline efforts. Significant GRC contributions this 

year were in support of understanding friction stir weld processes and breathing systems on high-performance 

aircraft. The NASA Technical Fellows for Cryogenics and Loads & Dynamics and deputies for the Cryogenics, 

Electrical Power, Materials, Thermal Control & Protection, Propulsion, Nuclear Power & Propulsion, and Software 

TDTs, are resident at GRC. 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Johnson Space Center

Raymond Higuera

Mr. Raymond Higuera is a Manufacturing Engineer/Lab Manager, a dual role that offers him the opportunity to oversee 

flight hardware builds and testing. “It's almost a hybrid position 

where I do both engineering and hands-on work,” he said. This 

made him a good fit for the NESC’s efforts to improve models 

and techniques for wire ampacity determination. “The primary 

objective is to develop a tool that will help determine ampacity 

limits based on wire lengths and sizes, power requirements, 

and environments. We are testing different wire configurations 

in various environments to develop the parameters that would 

be plugged into this tool.” 

The work has involved not only procuring and installing equipment and instrumentation into a test chamber, 

but also constructing several large wire bundles—up to 

139 wires and 12 feet in length. The chamber provided 

both Earth- and space-like environments and temperature 

ranges from -50 to 70 oC. “Having all of these variables increases the accuracy of that tool.” As his first experience 

working with the NESC, Mr. Higuera appreciated the collaboration with different NASA centers. “There are specialists 

everywhere you go, and talking to someone from another center gave me a different perception of how they work.”

Wade Smith

Mr. Wade Smith is the testbed lead for the CITADEL (Cryogenic Ice Transfer, Acquisition Development, and Excavation Laboratory) at JPL. Mr. Smith manages multiple projects 

from conceptual design to test execution within CITADEL, a 

cryogenic testing chamber that can mimic icy moon environments with temperatures down to 50 K. and atmospheres at 

near-vacuum pressures. He is currently assisting the NESC 

with a durability analysis of astronaut gloves. “We're going to 

the dark side of the Moon for Artemis, and we need to understand the survivability of the glove materials and the material 

response to these extremely cold temperatures.” He has designed the test that will include a specially designed mannequin hand that can mimic blood flow as well as an assembly 

system that will allow the hand and glove to flex. The data 

generated from the tests will help create the requirements for 

the development of new gloves. 

The work he does is very hands on, which Mr. Smith enjoys. 

“As engineers, we can spend all of our time in front of a computer and forget what it’s like to actually build things, put them 

together, and test them, which is the kind of work I like.” He 

said working with the NESC “lets us work with other centers. 

At JPL, we can be physically isolated here on the West Coast. 

These projects help remind us that we're all a part of NASA.” 

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) provided technical leadership and engineering expertise to 27 new or 

ongoing NESC assessments and 19 Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) in 2023. JPL’s expertise in composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV), avionics, software, environmental monitoring, additive manufacturing, mechanical structures, and thermal analysis supported assessments for a variety of NASA’s Mission Directorates. Significant contributions included assessment of Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical 

Parts Copper Wire Bonds, wire and wire bundle ampacity testing and analysis, LOX-methane quick disconnect 

testing and analysis, and thermal testing in support of lunar glove analysis. Over 50 JPL employees served on TDTs 

working with NASA Technical Fellows on advancement of Agency engineering initiatives. JPL provides leadership for 

the COPV Working Group and the Space Environments, Electrical Power, and Mechanical Systems TDT deputies 

reside at JPL.

Kimberly A. Simpson, NESC Chief Engineer

98 JPL employees supported NESC work in FY23

Erica Bruno

As the Loads and Dynamics (L&D) Section Manager for Jacobs Technology, Ms. Erica Bruno has spent much of her 

career supporting JSC engineering. A long-time member of 

the L&D Technical Discipline Team (TDT), she has worked 

on several NESC efforts including reviews of Space Launch 

System environments, Exploration Systems Development 

models, and Commercial Crew booster re-use. “L&D encompasses so much. Between low and high frequency, random vibration, shock, and acoustics, there's always something more 

to learn,” said Ms. Bruno. “You are one of the first groups of a 

project paving the way because sizing of your hardware can’t 

be done until you have loads.” 

In her work on assessments with the TDT or the Structures, 

Loads and Dynamics, Materials, and Mechanical Systems 

Early Career Community, Ms. Bruno appreciates the multidisciplined nature of NESC work. “I've been at JSC for most of my 

career, so I'm familiar with my Center’s programs. But through 

the NESC, I get experience with other projects, analyses, and 

techniques that engineers across the Agency are working on. 

As part of these multidisciplined teams, you get other perspectives beyond just the JSC perspective. And if you have a question, you can reach out to others who have expertise in that 

area and not have to reinvent the wheel.” 

Dr. Jackelynne Silva-Martinez

As a member of the Systems Engineering TDT, Dr. Jackelynne 

Silva-Martinez led a study on Agile teams across the Agency 

to identify leadership outcomes that allow them to be more 

adaptable and flexible to change. She said Agile got its start in 

software development and has gradually broadened its impact. 

To gage NASA’s incorporation of Agile principles, the Systems 

Engineering TDT paired with the Software and Human Factors 

TDTs to develop interview questions for Agile teams located at 

all 10 centers. “Using that feedback, we are formulating a NASA 

Agile Community of Practice (CoP) where Agilists can share 

their work, lessons learned, and best practices from their Agile 

transformations to help increase the workforce Agile capability 

across the centers.” 

Her work with the TDTs is also helping her shape the Agency’s 

Agile CoP. “The TDTs help us provide ideas and collaborate 

across the entire Agency, and the accessibility to see what 

others are doing in their own centers helps us find solutions to 

problems.” The same goes for Agile. “If leaders can empower 

their teams to deliver increasing value founded on open communication and frequent feedback within a transparent and 

collaborative environment, then a continuous learning mindset 

is developed in the organization’s culture that allows them to 

be comfortable with uncertainty.” 

The year 2023 was an exciting and productive year at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and the White 

Sands Test Facility (WSTF) as engineering, test, and operations personnel realized their contributions to the 

first successful Artemis I flight, including the Orion crew module landing and recovery. This past year, diverse 

engineering teams continued their support of multiple sustaining and new emerging programs including the ISS, 

Commercial Crew, Gateway, the Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program, and the Commercial 

Low Earth Orbit Destinations. The resident NASA Technical Fellows and engineering teams continue to investigate 

the Artemis I Orion heatshield char loss and the release and retention bolt erosion. Support continues for multiple 

propulsion and lunar material investigations and the Russian PrK crack investigation team. Resident NASA Technical 

Fellows continue their mission with Agency discipline leaders to strengthen technical community connections through 

joint sponsorship and participation in NASA, other governmental, and academia activities. 

Joel W. Sills, NESC Chief Engineer

106 JSC employees supported NESC work in FY23

38 NESC at the Centers NESC at the Centers 39
Kennedy Space Center Langley Research Center

René Formoso

Following the Artemis II launch, Mr. René Formoso will be busy 

checking the results from the new microphone phased array 

(MPA) system that will be installed ~400 feet from the launch 

pad. “MPA will capture sounds coming off the mobile launcher platform from the vehicle to identify acoustic impingement 

zones during launch,” he said. Mounted 132 feet up on a lighting tower, MPA will have 70 microphones, multiple cameras, 

and accelerometers to help NASA better understand how 

sounds translate as Artemis II lifts off. “The data we collect will 

help improve mobile launcher and sound suppression systems 

for future launches.” 

Mr. Formoso’s years of experience in managing research and 

technology projects have been vital to the NESC’s efforts to get 

MPA to the finish line with the design of mounting equipment 

as well as verifying and validating the system. He put MPA 

through its paces during engine hot fire tests at SSC as well as 

the NG-19 launch at the Wallops Flight Facility. “Every launch 

environment is different. So having this technology will help us 

understand how sound affects not only the ground systems but 

the rocket as well, which will help us keep the crew safe. The 

NESC is focused on reducing risk, and this MPA technology is 

reducing the risk of damaging hardware, the vehicle, or those 

on board.” See MPA Innovative Technique on page 62. 

Teresa Kinney

Ms. Teresa Kinney has spent more than 30 years performing 

dynamic analyses, including loads analysis and modal testing 

of large space structures that flew on Space Shuttle missions, 

including Spacelab and ISS. Today, as the acting Gateway 

Deep Space Logistics Chief Engineer and one of three deputies for the NESC Loads & Dynamics TDT, she has brought 

her expertise to several NESC assessments, including evaluating data from the Space Launch System modal and rollout 

tests and peer reviewing landing loads for the Commercial 

Crew Program. “Modal testing helps you understand how the 

hardware is going to behave and gives you confidence you will 

not fly outside of predictions,” she said. 

“There are only a few areas where you can't test like you fly, 

and loads is one of them. So you do your best to model and 

analyze the hardware as accurately as possible to predict the 

loads you could see in flight; then you reconcile those predictions with measured flight data. What I like most about this 

work is that you get smarter about testing from the analysis, 

and you get smarter about the analysis from testing. It’s very 

interactive.” In her work with the NESC, Ms. Kinney said she 

enjoys “the exposure to many different ways of doing things 

and to expertise across the Agency, which I find very exciting.” 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) personnel provided technical expertise to 41 NESC activities and Technical 

Discipline Teams (TDT) in 2023. They engaged in numerous NESC assessments including programmable 

logic device guidance and standard, spacesuit water membrane evaporator testing, galvanic corrosion and 

degradation of metallic films on circuit boards, and material sensitivity to hypergolic exposure. Likewise, the 

NESC supported KSC programs, providing parachute review and analyses and assessments of booster hot gas 

intrusion and tape flammability risk for the Commercial Crew Program and mobile launcher design and peer reviews for 

Exploration Ground Systems. The NESC also invested in KSC’s laboratories to evaluate anaerobic hydrogen sensor 

development and perform spacesuit water membrane evaporator and commercial crew portable fire extinguisher testing. The NASA Technical Fellow for Electrical Power resides at KSC and relies on KSC expertise.

Dr. Brett Hiller

Working for LaRC’s Configuration Aerodynamics Branch, 

Dr. Brett Hiller’s research focuses on aerodynamic design, 

analysis, and optimization for next generation vehicle concepts 

and technologies. This expertise made him a vital asset in the 

NESC’s assessment of the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Earth 

Entry System’s (EES) dynamic stability. “There was some 

uncertainty in the dynamic stability through the slower subsonic 

and transonic flight ranges,” said Dr. Hiller. Wind tunnel test 

delays led the team to pursue complementary estimates for 

dynamic stability during reentry using computational fluid 

dynamics (CFD) simulations. 

“We evaluated the static and dynamic aerodynamic performance of the flight-scale MSR-EES across its subsonic flight 

envelope, varying angle of attack and Mach number, and simulated two different wind tunnel configurations to provide test 

facilities with computational aerodynamic estimates for wind 

tunnel sting corrections.” The year-long effort took place during 

the pandemic. "Thankfully, we effectively communicated across 

multiple centers and successfully completed the assessment. It 

was one of the first projects that exposed me to production-level 

CFD and estimating the performance of a model over a large 

portion of its flight range, so it has been an exciting and invaluable experience as an early-career engineer.” 

Dr. David Dawicke

A Senior Scientist for Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., 

Dr. David Dawicke has worked at LaRC for more than 30 years 

and has spent nearly 20 of them participating in NESC technical assessments. His expertise has proven invaluable on investigations into the Space Shuttle, ISS, Aries I-X, Mars 2020, 

CLARREO climate observatory, Orion, and Gateway Programs. As a member of the NESC Structures Technical Discipline Team, he has provided long-term support to NESC activities involving fatigue and fracture, composite overwrapped 

pressure vessels (COPV), frangible joints, specialized structural and material testing, and digital image correlation. 

Recently he examined the standard that outlines the damage 

tolerance requirements for COPVs with metallic liners, helping 

the NESC team demonstrate experimentally and analytically 

that the approach allowed by the standard was unconservative. “We also came up with an approach that could be used to 

account for this unconservatism, and we're working to get that 

into the standard now,” said Dr. Dawicke. “I have enjoyed working with the NESC on solving relevant, challenging problems 

with technical experts in many different fields. Each problem 

has been unique and required the implementation of existing 

skills and tools, the development of new skills, and collaboration with experts in fields outside of my experience.” 

The NESC continues to rely heavily on the unique expertise available in the Langley Research Center 

(LaRC) workforce. In FY23, 276 LaRC employees participated in more than 70 assessments, engaging in 

activities such as computational fluid dynamics analyses of the Mars Sample Return Earth Entry System; 

nondestructive evaluation and materials characterization to establish the bond verification process for the 

block Avcoat heatshield architecture used on the Orion spacecraft; modeling and simulation for Commercial Crew 

Program entry, descent, and landing; and quantitative material compatibility and environmentally assisted cracking data 

collection for propulsion system metals in the hypergolic propellant environment. Multiple LaRC facilities such as the 

Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, the Vertical Spin Tunnel, and the Light Alloy Laboratory were used in support of NESC 

activities. These efforts allow NASA to achieve its vision of exploring the secrets of the universe for the benefit of all. 

Stephen A. Minute, NESC Chief Engineer 

49 KSC employees supported NESC work in FY23

 K. Elliott Cramer, NESC Chief Engineer 

276 LaRC employees supported NESC work in FY23

40 NESC at the Centers NESC at the Centers 41
Marshall Space Flight Center Stennis Space Center

The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) continues to provide exceptional engineer, scientist, and technician 

subject matter expert support to 64 NESC technical activities involving exploration systems development, 

space operations and environmental effects, science, and crosscutting discipline activities. Some of the more 

significant efforts included mishap investigation, materials compatibility, model-based systems engineering, 

high-temperature insulation, advanced chemical propulsion, modeling and simulation of launch vehicle/spacecraft 

interfaces, and human factors task analyses. The NASA Technical Fellows for Propulsion, Space Environments, 

Environmental Control & Life Support (ECLS), Flight Mechanics, and Systems Engineering, and the Technical Discipline 

Team (TDT) Deputies for Propulsion, Nuclear Power & Propulsion, Materials, Space Environments, Loads & Dynamics, 

Nondestructive Evaluation, ECLS, Structures, Sensors & Instrumentation, and Software are resident at MSFC. 

Dr. Daniel Allgood

Dr. Daniel Allgood is leading the data analysis and modeling of 

liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (methane) as part 

of an NESC assessment of the hazards and risks associated 

with these propellants. Detonation of these propellants is highly energetic and extremely hazardous if not controlled, said 

Dr. Allgood. “At Stennis, our focus is on rocket testing, so we 

generally don’t look at the mixing dynamics of these cryogenic 

propellants in a launch vehicle failure scenario. We’re diving 

into a whole new area of physics that has been exciting but 

quite challenging.” Dr. Allgood is leading a team of multi-center 

and multi-Agency modeling experts to inform the safe design 

and operation of launch vehicles using these propellants. 

“The combustion modeling of LOX-methane as a condensed 

phase explosive is a new area no one has attempted. We've 

modeled much of the mixing dynamics so far and made progress in validating the combustion models. But we still have a 

long way to go to help the test teams understand the physics, the development of their tests, and how to interpret the 

data they collect.” He is enjoying the challenges this unique 

assessment offers. “This is the first chance I’ve had to work as 

the technical lead of a team. It has allowed me the great opportunity to view things from a leadership perspective versus 

just my own individual perspective.” 

Lester Langford 

At SSC for 33 years, Mr. Lester Langford is highly skilled in 

the logistics of his Center. “I’ve worked here a long time, and 

I can get things done,” said the electrical design engineer the 

NESC called on to coordinate the testing at SSC of a new 

microphone phased array (MPA). The ARC-built MPA will 

eventually be mounted ~460 feet away from KSC’s Pad 39B to 

identify and pinpoint transient engine acoustic sources during 

the next Artemis launch. But first it was put through its paces

during an RS-25 engine test at the SSC A-1 Test Stand. 

“It was a validation test on a stationary source before taking it 

to Wallops for testing during a launch,” Mr. Langford said. 

In the more than a year it took to plan and coordinate the effort,

Mr. Langford sited the MPA test area, had a large asphalt test 

pad built, and assisted in the assembly of the array when it arrived from ARC and construction of the more than 100-foot-tall 

scaffold to hold it. He also set up power, purge lines, and network connections to get the MPA data back to a control center. 

“When you look at the data, it is amazing,” he said of the test 

results, which will ultimately help improve sound suppression 

at the pad. “It will be an enhancement of the systems at KSC 

that help keep people and the launch area safe. It's going to 

be a good thing.” 

Expert technical support was provided to the NESC by Stennis Space Center (SSC), including subject 

matter expertise in systems engineering, test operations, and data analysis and modeling. SSC also 

supplied technical expertise, labor, and facilities at the A-1 Test Stand for the NESC microphone phasedarray system testing. The phased-array system was successfully operated during an engine firing and will 

eventually be utilized at KSC for the Artemis II launch. Additionally, SSC provided the data analysis and modeling 

technical lead for the NESC Liquid Oxygen-Methane Assessment. Several SSC engineers are valuable members of 

the NESC’s Systems Engineering and Nondestructive Evaluation Technical Discipline Teams. 

Amanda Drake

In her work managing NESC resources at MSFC, Resource Analyst Ms. Amanda 

Drake enjoys the opportunity to support the Agency and its mission. “I work across 

different areas of leadership, stakeholders, and managers, both inside and outside 

of NASA,” she said. “I also interface with vendors for the work and services we 

need to support the mission.” For the last 4 years, she has provided invaluable 

support at her Center. “I'm in charge of committing or reserving funds and getting 

them put on contract. That includes developing a realistic budget that matches 

NESC obligations, not just for the fiscal year, but looking 5 years ahead as well.” 

For more than 20 years, she has supported NASA projects as a contractor and civil 

servant, learning both the industry and government sides of the budget process. 

“I enjoy this type of work, especially the number crunching. I have always had a 

love for math, and that is why I enjoy the aspect of analyzing the data.”

Dr. Jessica Gaskin 

As the Sensors & Instrumentation Deputy Technical Fellow, Dr. Jessica Gaskin supports the NASA Sensors & Instrumentation Technical Fellow in leading the TDT, 

coordinating monthly and yearly meetings, and supporting NESC assessments 

including workshopping quantum sensors. She specializes in science mission 

high-energy detector systems and X-ray optics. “It’s such a brilliant philosophy—

bringing together experts to solve a potential problem before it happens. It's that 

proactive engagement by the NESC that sets it apart from other organizations 

within NASA. Our TDT has members from every center, industry, academia, federally funded research and development centers, and other government agencies. 

It’s a network of incredible experts who can put aside their organizations' politics 

to solve complex problems. It’s a wonderful resource that science missions don’t 

always know about.” Dr. Gaskin has made it her mission to let internal and external 

stakeholders know about the NESC. 

Ilana Lu 

Ms. Ilana Lu led weld characterization efforts to find the root cause of cryogenic 

tank self-reacting friction stir weld (FSW) anomalies. “FSW allows you to join materials like aluminum-lithium alloys that are difficult to fusion weld. Those materials are 

typically chosen for tanks because they perform well cryogenically and offer mass 

savings.” Ms. Lu, a welding engineer, managed the weld experiment preparation, 

specimen testing, and metallurgical evaluation of the hundreds of welds performed 

for this NESC assessment. “We gathered a lot of good data on what causes these 

anomalies, and we understand the welding process an order of magnitude better 

than we did previously. I think it's going to be really impactful for the friction stir welding community.” She credits the team for the successful outcome of the assessment.

“Our team was the perfect combination of multidisciplinary experts in statistical 

analysis, machine learning, and metallurgy. That's been a real highlight of the work.” 

Steven J. Gentz, NESC Chief Engineer

140 MSFC employees supported NESC work in FY23

Michael D. Smiles, NESC Chief Engineer

33 SSC employees supported NESC work in FY23

42 NESC at the Centers NESC at the Centers 43
Explore these products at:

NASA.GOV/NESC

Capturing & Preserving

Critical Knowledge from NESC 

Assessments & Support Activities

The NESC is engaged in activities to 

identify, retain, and share critical knowledge 

in order to meet our future challenges. To 

disseminate that knowledge to engineers—

within NASA, industry, and academia—the 

NESC develops a wide variety of knowledge 

products that can be readily accessed. 

NESC

KNOWLEDGE 

PRODUCTS

44 NESC Knowledge Products NESC Academy 45

Nearly two decades of NASA knowledge sits waiting to be 

learned—a wealth of information readily available to all employees and contractors—but it remains a largely untapped 

resource. The NESC is working to change that. 

Since 2005, the NESC Academy has collected and housed 

more than 1,000 videos and webcasts from researchers, engineers, and field experts in 21 NASA technical disciplines. “I 

was blown away by the content available,” said Ms. Carmel 

Conaty, the NESC Chief Engineer for GSFC. She led training and development programs at GSFC but until joining the 

NESC had never heard of the Academy. 

“Many engineering supervisors have challenges finding training for employees, especially early-career engineers, because 

what NASA does is very niche oriented. And as budgets are 

cut for training and development, having this kind of specific 

discipline content is invaluable.” 

She worked with the NESC Academy developers to make its 

library of content more accessible and usable by the NASA 

workforce and increase content on discipline fundamentals. 

“We really want to augment this capability, especially for early 

careers. At Goddard, a large percentage of our engineering 

workforce is eligible to retire now or within the next five years. 

That will be a huge loss, so we want to continue to capture that 

knowledge, especially in our niche disciplined skills, and have 

state-of-the-art capabilities that allow the workforce to find and 

learn that knowledge. And we want to give supervisors the 

ability to assign just-in-time training to their employees.” 

Developers enhanced the site with a more user-friendly interface, better search capability, and the option to create playlists tailored to user interest. For supervisors, Ms. Conaty said 

they can create topic-specific video lists. “If employees will be 

supporting a thermal vacuum test, for example, the supervisor 

could create a playlist of videos on that topic to watch beforehand,” she said. 

“It also exposes engineers to the broader NASA network, not 

just their own center or project. Often people can get siloed 

early in their careers, and this is a way for them to lift their 

heads up and see what's going on across the Agency.” 

Ms. Conaty adds that the NESC Academy is not meant to replace in-person training. “It’s just one more thing we can do to 

help retain our engineers. I think it’s everyone’s responsibility 

within the NESC and the Agency to engage in the development of NASA engineers.” 

New Features Make It an Improved Resource for Career Development, 

Knowledge Transfer, and Training 

NESC Academy Enhancements

NEW FEATURE: 

Videos are now rated by skill level and technical categories.

NEW FEATURE:

Supervisors can create topicspecific playlists for new employees 

and project team members.

A C A D E M Y

N E S C

NESCACADEMY.NASA.GOV

New and creative engineering 

approaches developed during 

NESC technical activities.

INNOVATIVE

TECHNIQUES

Documented results of 

independent testing and 

analysis delivered to the 

requesting stakeholders.

ENGINEERING

REPORTS

Critical engineering 

information or best practices 

captured in a one-page, 

quick-read format.

TECHNICAL

BULLETINS

Citations for publications 

summarizing NESC technical 

activities for discipline-specific 

audiences.

JOURNAL 

ARTICLES & 

CONFERENCE 

PAPERS

LESSONS 

LEARNED

Useful knowledge gained 

from experience.

• Lessons Learned 

 Information System (LLIS)

• NESC Academy

An online community where 

NASA employees can 

collaborate with peers and 

discipline experts.

NASA 

ENGINEERING

NETWORK

Annual reports of NESC

technical activities.

TECHNICAL

UPDATES
Technical Bulletin No. 23-04

Fast Coupled Loads Analysis Method: 

Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling

A new method called Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) has been 

developed to perform coupled loads analysis (CLA). NTRC provides a tool that 

payload developers can use to obtain launch loads at a fraction of the cost of 

a CLA any time it is required in the payload design cycle. NTRC combines the 

frequency domain component coupling method of receptance coupling with the 

Norton and Thevenin theory used in force limiting to derive an alternate method 

for performing CLA.

Technical Bulletin No. 23-05

Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability

and Component Sharing

As multiple flight mechanics analysis tools are developed to meet the unique scientific and operational requirements of NASA missions, sharing data and transferring 

models and trajectory information between tools can be complicated. The NESC 

recently explored ways that increase interoperability of three mission analysis 

tools: Copernicus, General Mission Analysis Tool, and Mission-Analysis Operations Navigation Toolkit Environment. These tools are used to generate a variety of 

products throughout all phases of a mission including: maneuver planning, trajectory optimization and design, orbit determination, performance and error analysis, 

trade studies, and sizing. Establishing a framework to share models, component 

data, and trajectory information is an efficient way to leverage the benefits of an 

analysis tool without expending development costs to duplicate functionality.

Technical Bulletin No. 23-06

Considerations for Software Fault Prevention

and Tolerance

Mission or safety-critical spaceflight systems should be developed to both reduce 

the likelihood of software faults preflight and to detect/mitigate the effects of software errors should they occur in flight. New data are available that categorizes 

software errors from significant historic spaceflight software incidents with implications and considerations to better develop and design software to both minimize 

and tolerate these most likely software failures.

Technical Bulletin No. 23-03

New Transient Finite Energy Shock

Prediction Methodology

Shock prediction is one of the top loads and dynamics discipline technical challenges 

identified within NASA and industry programs and projects. The physics-based Transient Finite Energy (TFE) shock prediction methodology has been developed and 

compared favorably against test results. TFE can provide another approach to develop predictions of shock response spectra for use in the analysis of structural margins.

46 NESC Technical Bulletins NESC Technical Bulletins 47

Technical Bulletin No. 23-01

Including Key Design Features in Safety-Critical 

Pyrotechnic Firing Circuits

Pyrotechnic systems often fall into a unique category in that inadvertent activation 

of these systems resulting from a fault and/or lack of safe margins can lead directly 

to loss of crew. For example, untimely activation of pyrotechnics used for a flight 

termination system could override an abort capability. Over the years, NASA and 

the military have learned lessons about safe pyrotechnic circuit design and testing, 

many of which are codified. However, with NASA’s recent efforts to move toward a 

development model that leans more heavily on commercial partners these requirements have not always been directly levied on projects, and in some cases have 

been misinterpreted. This bulletin describes key safety features of pyrotechnic firing 

circuit design and provides rationale for inclusion of each feature.

Technical Bulletin No. 23-02

Safety Considerations when Repurposing Commercially 

Available Flight Termination Systems from Uncrewed to 

Crewed Launch Vehicles

Both uncrewed and crewed launch vehicles (LV) require flight termination systems 

(FTS) for range safety to protect the public and ground assets in the event of an 

LV failure. Flight crew safety in this context is an added consideration for human 

spaceflight. The FTS is an electroexplosive system that activates destruct charges 

to rupture propellant tanks and shut down engines during flight termination. Commercially available FTS units have been developed for uncrewed applications and 

are now being repurposed to crewed applications. A consequence of using these 

systems is that they are designed for public and ground crew safety, though inadequate for flight crew safety. Missing are human spaceflight design controls for inadvertent activation during crewed ascent and protection for crew emergency aborts.

The Need for Rapid CLA

NTRC attempts to reduce the dependency of the 

payload organization on high CLA costs, long analysis 

schedules, lack of standard capabilities to evaluate 

multiple payload configurations, and unavailability of 

launch loads from the launch vehicle (LV) provider 

when needed. While NTRC is not intended to replace 

the formal load cycles performed by the LV provider, 

it can provide the ability to reduce the conservatism in 

defining preliminary design loads, assess the impact 

of design changes between formal load cycles, 

perform trade studies, and perform parametric loads 

analysis where many different design configurations 

can be evaluated with a minimum amount of data 

required from the LV provider.

NTRC Methodology

NTRC condenses all the necessary information into 

the launch vehicle to payload/s connection points or 

boundary degrees-of-freedom (BD). The LV model is 

represented by its impedance at its BDs; its forcing 

functions are represented by the acceleration at 

those BDs when the payload is absent; and the 

payload is represented by its impedance at the same 

BDs. Payload responses are represented by transfer 

functions of selected response to interface BDs.

The NTRC methodology is exact in the frequency 

domain, while time domain replication and accuracy 

can be within +5% as shown in the time domain plot. 

In summary, NTRC is an alternate coupling approach 

that can be used to replicate a standard LV CLA 

and was developed as a design tool for the payload 

community with the minimum information required 

from LV providers.

References

1. Kaufman, D., Gordon, S., and Majed, A. “NortonThevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) as a Payload 

Analysis Tool”, May 2018. Available from: https://ntrs.

nasa.gov/citations/20180003339

2. Gordon, S., Kaufman, D., and Majed, A. “NortonThevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) as a Payload 

Design Tool”, June 2017. Available from: https://ntrs.

nasa.gov/citations/20170005687

3. Johnson, D., Gordon, S., and Kaufman, D. “NortonThevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) Coupled 

Loads Analysis (CLA) Method”, April 2019, NASA/TM2019-220270/Volume I

4. Johnson, D., Gordon, S., Kaufman, D., and Majed, A.

“Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) Coupled

Loads Analysis (CLA) Method”, April 2019, NASA/TM2019-220270/Volume II

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-04

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Fast Coupled Loads Analysis Method: Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling

A new method called Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) has been developed to perform 

coupled loads analysis (CLA). NTRC provides a tool that payload developers can use to obtain launch 

loads at a fraction of the cost of a CLA any time it is required in the payload design cycle. NTRC 

combines the frequency domain component coupling method of Receptance Coupling with the Norton 

and Thevenin theory used in force limiting to derive an alternate method for performing CLA.

www.nasa.gov

For more information, contact Daniel Kaufman, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, daniel.s.kaufman@nasa.gov. 06/27/23 DOC ID: 20230010411 

Interface accelerations in LV thrust direction capturing 

all relevant characteristics of Pad Separation CLA.

-20 1 2 3 4 5

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

Time (s)

Nonlinear CLA

NTRC

Interface Accelerations (m/s2

)

Tool Integration Approach 

This work focused on three popular tools primarily used for navigation and mission design. An enterprise system of systems with 

application programming interfaces (API) and plugins was developed to enable interoperability between tools as shown in Figure 1. 

GMAT-Monte interoperability uses an API to access GMAT functionality and expand its uses to include real-time tracking data, higher fidelity dynamics modeling, and access to Jupyter notebooks to 

execute GMAT. GMAT-Copernicus interoperability focused on utilizing a common 3D graphics engine where both tools benefited from 

improvements in common graphics components. Having access to 

newly shared capabilities in the graphics library enables multi-core 

support, cross-platform functionality and showcases new features 

such as day/night lighting cycles of planets and eclipse shadowing. 

Monte-Copernicus interoperability included new python interface 

development, tool updates and use case definitions. Both tools benefited where Monte can now leverage the 3D Graphics capabilities 

handled in Copernicus and Copernicus can access higher fidelity 

dynamics modeling found in Monte.

Trajectory Reverse Engineering

One innovative technique that resulted from this effort is termed 

“Trajectory Reverse Engineering”, which allows for the transfer of 

a generated trajectory to another platform without carrying all the 

associated data. This novel method, illustrated in Figure 2, is applicable to any flight mechanics tool by utilizing the spacecraft and 

planet kernel (SPK) format developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility. Details behind this 

innovative technique can be found in (Ref. 2).

Benefits for the FM Community

Newly developed functionality between these commonly used tools 

enables solutions to more complex trajectory design problems than 

can be accommodated with each individual tool by itself. Use cases 

developed under this effort are available and demonstrate the new 

interfaces, plug-ins, graphics updates and trajectory transfer features. 

References

1. Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability and 

Component Sharing, April 2023, NASA/TM-20230006507

 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230006507 

2. Trajectory Reverse Engineering: A General Strategy for 

Transferring Trajectories Between Flight Mechanics Tools, 

Ricardo Restrepo, AAS 23-312.

3. Copernicus Trajectory Design and Optimization System 

https://software.nasa.gov/software/MSC-26673-1

4. General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT)

 https://software.nasa.gov/software/GSC-19097-1

5. Mission-Analysis Operations Navigation Toolkit 

Environment (Monte) https://montepy.jpl.nasa.gov/

6. Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability 

and Component Sharing Website. 

https://nescacademy.nasa.gov/FMAnalysisTool

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-05

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability and Component Sharing 

As multiple flight mechanics (FM) analysis tools are developed to meet the unique scientific and operational requirements 

of NASA missions, sharing data, transferring models and trajectory information between tools can be complicated. 

The NESC recently explored ways that increase interoperability of three mission analysis tools: Copernicus, General 

Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT), and Mission-Analysis Operations Navigation Toolkit Environment (Monte). These tools 

are used to generate a variety of products throughout all phases of a mission including: maneuver planning, trajectory 

optimization and design, orbit determination, performance and error analysis, trade studies and sizing. Establishing a 

framework to share models, component data and trajectory information is an efficient way to leverage the benefits of an 

analysis tool without expending development costs to duplicate functionality.

www.nasa.gov For more information, contact Heather Koehler, heather.koehler@nasa.gov. 08/01/23 DOC ID: 20230010417 

Figure 1. System-of-systems approach to interfacing Copernicus, Monte and 

GMAT functionality. (Note: Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator (SWIG))

Copernicus, Others

Programming Environments

Python API

Monte Core

SWIG API

GMAT C++ API

GMAT Core

Figure 2. Interoperability between flight mechanics tools, (a) using a 

standardized trajectory structure and (b) specific tool-to-tool interface design. 

(Note: Tool X is any commercial tool)

SPK

Copernicus

Tool X

Monte GMAT

Copernicus

Tool X

Monte GMAT

(a) (b)

PythonTM • JavaTM • MATLAB®

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-06

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Considerations for Software Fault Prevention and Tolerance 

Mission or safety-critical spaceflight systems should be developed to both reduce the likelihood of software faults pre-flight and to 

detect/mitigate the effects of software errors should they occur in-flight. New data is available that categorizes software errors from 

significant historic spaceflight software incidents with implications and considerations to better develop and design software to both 

minimize and tolerate these most likely software failures.

www.nasa.gov For more information, contact Lorraine Prokop, lorraine.e.prokop@nasa.gov. 09/19/23 DOC ID: 20230013383

New Historical Data Compilation Summary 

Previously unquantified in this manner, this data characterizes a set of 

55 high-impact historic aerospace software failure* incidents. Key findings are that software is much more likely to fail by producing erroneous 

output rather than failing silent, and that rebooting is ineffective to clear 

these erroneous situations. Forty percent (40%) of software errors were 

due to absence of code, which includes missing requirements or capabilities, and inability to handle unanticipated situations. Only 18% of these 

incidents fall within the software discipline itself, with no incidents related 

to choice of platform or toolset. The origin of each error is categorized 

to focus specific development, test, and validation techniques for error 

prevention in each category. This new data focuses on manifestations of 

unexpected flight software behavior independent of ultimate root cause. 

It is provided for considerations to improve software design, test, and 

operations for resilience to the most common software errors and to augment established processes for NASA software development.

Implications and Considerations 

These findings indicate that for software fault tolerance, primary consideration should be given to software behaving erroneously rather than 

going silent, especially at critical moments, and that reboot recoverability 

can be unreliable. Special care should be taken to validate configurable 

data and commands prior to each use. “Test-like-you-fly”, including 

sensor hardware-in-the-loop, combined with robust off-nominal testing 

should be used to uncover missing logic arising from unanticipated situations. Some best practice strategies to emphasize pre-flight and during 

operations based on this data are shown below.

Best Practices for Safety-Critical 

Software Design

Although best efforts can be made prior to flight, software behavior reflects a model of real-world events that cannot be fully proven or predicted, and traditional system design usually employs only one primary 

flight software load, even if replicated on multiple strings. Like designing 

avionic systems to protect for radiation and mistrusted communication (Byzantine-faults**), safety-critical systems must be designed for 

resilience to erroneous software behavior. NASA Human-Rating requirements call for in-flight mitigation to hazardous erroneous software 

behavior, detection and annunciation of critical software faults, manual 

override of automation, and at least single fault tolerance to software 

errors without use of emergency systems. Each project/designer must 

evaluate these requirements against safety hazards and time-to-effect 

and then invoke appropriate automation fail-down strategies. Common 

mitigation techniques during flight are shown below.

Summary

Significant software failures have occurred steadily since first use in 

space. New data has characterized the behavior of these failures to better understand manifestation patterns and origin. The strategies outlined 

here should be considered during vehicle design, and throughout the 

software development and operations lifecycle to minimize the occurrence and impact of errant software behavior.

Terminology

*Software Failure – Software behaving in an unexpected manner 

causing loss of life, injury, loss/end of mission, or significant close-call

**Byzantine – Active, but possibly corrupted/untrusted communication

Erroneous Fail-Silent

Error Manifestations 85%

Reboot Effectiveness 2%

Error Origin, % of Total

Code / Logic

Configurable Data

Unexpected Sensor Input

Command/Operator Input

Other Categories, Individually % of Total

Absence of Code

Unknown-unknowns

Computer Science Discipline

15%

58%

15%

40%

38%

16%

11%

16%

18%

Software Error Prevention Strategies

• Utilize a disciplined software engineering and assurance approach with 

 applicable standards 4,5

• Employ logic for handling off-nominal sensor and data input, handling 

 exceptions, and performing check-point restart

• “Test like you Fly” with hardware-in-the-loop, especially sensors, over 

 expected mission durations if possible

• Employ two-stage commanding with operator implication acknowledgement 

 for critical commands

• Validate mission data prior to each use

• Perform off-nominal scenario, fault, and input testing to expose missing 

 code not covered by requirements alone, with multidisciplinary involvement

In-Flight Software Error Detection and Mitigation Strategies

• Provide crew/ground insight, control, and override

• Employ software backups (targeted to full) which are:

 ○ Simple (compared to primary flight software)

 ○ Dissimilar (especially in requirements and test)

• Enter safe mode (reduced capability primary software subset)

 ○ Examples: restore power/communication, conserve fuel

• Uplink new software and/or data (time permitting)

• Design system to reduce/eliminate dependency on software

• Reboot (often ineffective for logic/data errors)

• Employ independent monitoring of critical vehicle automation

 ○ Manual or automated detection, followed by response

References

1. Historical Aerospace Software Errors Categorized to Influence 

Fault Tolerance, Releasing March 2024, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/

citations/20230012909

2. Software Error Incident Categorizations in Aerospace, Aug 2023, 

NASA/TP-20230012154, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230012154

3. NPR 8705.2C, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, 

Jul 2017, nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/

4. NASA Software Engineering Requirements, NPR 7150.2D, Mar 2022,

nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/

5. Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard, NASA-STD-8739.8, 

9 Sep 2022, standards.nasa.gov

Need for Improved Shock Prediction 

Traditionally, SRS prediction has been extremely challenging. It has 

been consistently considered a top challenge by the NESC’s Loads 

and Dynamics Technical Discipline Team, most NASA Centers, and 

industry. Despite being required by many aerospace projects, NASA 

and industry recognize that the accuracy of current shock predictions 

can be analyst-dependent and in need of improved reliability. It is 

typical, but not desired, to have programmatic and technical risks 

related to shock prediction and margins still open late in the design 

cycle. Therefore, government and industry will benefit from improved 

shock prediction, not only for design, but also for risk mitigation.

TFE Methodology 

Physically, a shock source behaves as an impulsive force applied 

to a structure in a brief time, or a sudden release of strain energy 

within a structure and therefore has finite energy. The basic shape 

of the shock source force impulse is best modeled by a half sine. 

The physical phenomenon can be explained as a sudden expansion 

and contraction of the system, due to the half sine impulse. TFE is 

formulated by decoupling the impulsive shock input from propagation through the structure. It is considered physics based because 

it solves for an actual physical input forcing function called the TFE 

forcing function (TFE FF). 

The TFE FF is calculated by connecting three domains: SRS, Fourier 

spectra, and time. A shock synthesis is performed over the input SRS. 

The resulting time history is transformed to the frequency domain via 

a Fourier transform and multiplied by the driving point apparent mass 

of the structure at the shock source location. An inverse Fourier 

transform is performed on the resulting force spectrum to obtain the 

TFE FF time history. A Monte Carlo simulation is then performed 

applying the TFE FFs and calculating the mean SRS response. A 

dynamic uncertainty factor (DUF) is then added. 

There are two TFE calculation modes: TFE finite element model 

(FEM) analysis and TFE test. TFE FEM analysis uses a finite 

element analysis (FEA) transient analysis solution or steady-state 

transfer accelerations for prediction, compared to the TFE test-based 

mode, which uses transfer accelerations produced by a hammer 

tap. The FEM-based TFE has been validated and envelopes SRS 

measurements with reasonable DUFs (1.4 and 2.0 for 3 and 6 dB, 

respectively). 

In summary, the TFE methodology uses existing industry standards 

and a projects baseline FEA and consist of analysis and test 

procedures that are easily used by structural analysts. 

References

1. Applications of Finite Energy Methods to Transient, 

Random, and Shock Predictions: D. Kaufman, A. 

Majed, A. Kolaini, J. Sills, and E. Henkel, SCLV, 2022. 

ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220008193

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-03

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

New Transient Finite Energy Shock Prediction Methodology 

Shock prediction is one of the top loads and dynamics discipline technical challenges identified within NASA and 

industry programs and projects. The physics-based Transient Finite Energy (TFE) shock prediction methodology 

has been developed and compared favorably against test results. TFE can provide another approach to develop 

predictions of shock response spectra (SRS) for use in the analysis of structural margins.

www.nasa.gov

For information, contact daniel.s.kaufman@nasa.gov

and arya.majed@appliedstructuraldynamics.com. 07/28/23 DOC ID: 20230010357

Finite element model of notional satellite 

(above) and its SRS using this TFE shock 

prediction methodology (right)

Shock Response Spectra

F [Hz]

SRS [g]

101

10-1

100

101

102 103 104

SRSm

- 3dB Low

+3dB High

109

Measured SRS

TFE Prediction Corner X-Y+ Level with aluminum bulkhead Z

Background

The pyrotechnic initiation circuits, and software for autonomous FTS, in 

commercial uncrewed FTS are designed to prevent “failure-to-operate” 

(i.e., must-terminate) during the flight phase but lack standard protections 

found in crewed system to prevent inadvertent fire because they were 

designed to Space Force (SF) Range requirements without consideration 

to NASA crew safety requirements. The FTS is a fail-destruct system 

(i.e., as opposed to fail-safe), so in the case of crewed flight, inadvertent 

fire of the FTS system would circumvent the emergency escape system 

designed to allow crew survival. For this reason, NASA standards require 

the design to be two-fault tolerant to inadvertent fire when that failure 

mode leads directly to loss of crew (catastrophic hazard). While the 

prevention of failure-to-operate can be met with redundant strings, 

prevention of an inadvertent terminate relies on protection within the 

unit/string, meaning inadvertent fire controls must be included within 

each unit. System-level redundancy cannot address this hazard. In 

addition, there are other requirements levied for crewed missions during 

the ascent that the SF Range only requires to be active when ground 

crews are in and around the LV during prelaunch operations. 

Best Practices for Crewed FTS Designs 

Design features employed by both the military and NASA to prevent 

inadvertent fire are shown in the table below, while must-work versus 

must-not-work fault tolerance considerations for crewed vehicles are 

shown in the figure below.

While these are common hazard controls for HSF safety and are 

employed both by NASA and the SF Range, there is a difference 

between how and when the organizations apply these requirements. 

For example, the SF Range also requires an FTS arm switch, but allows 

it to be resident in ground service equipment and eliminated when 

ground crews clear the launch site. This hazard control approach is 

effective for ground crew but not flight crew. Similarly, the SF Range 

requires monitoring of safety inhibits, but only those inhibits engaged 

while on the ground. The range does not require the in-flight inhibits 

(fire command) to be monitored since an inadvertent FTS activation 

in flight threatens neither the public nor the launch-site ground crew, 

which is the focus of their requirements. 

Summary

The SF Range Safety requirements are not an alternate for NASA’s crew 

safety requirements. As in the case for the Space Shuttle and other 

NASA programs, both SF Range and NASA crew safety requirements 

sets can and should be met to afford the flight crew a level of hazard 

control on par with what has traditionally been afforded NASA flight 

crews and what is required by the range for ground crews.

Definitions

Arm: In the electrical firing circuit, the arm inhibit is upstream of the 

serial fire inhibits. The fire command provides the final application 

of power to the electroexplosive device. The electrical circuit arm is 

the preliminary state which must be transitioned just prior to firing 

pyrotechnics. It is the final application of power to the last remaining 

fire inhibits prior to firing pyrotechnics, as well as the powering up of 

the control logic (inhibit field effect transistor gate drive and decisional 

logic) that services those final terminate/fire inhibits. Ideally this 

function is physically located in a separate assembly. 

Two-Fault Tolerance: Required for explosive systems (e.g. FTS, which 

is fail-destruct) due to the potential of circumventing crew survival 

emergency systems. NASA legacy fault tolerance requirement for 

catastrophic hazard without use of emergency systems applies to the 

FTS case.

References

1. JSC 62809 Human-rated Spacecraft Pyrotechnic Specification

2. LLIS 30602 NASA’s Entry into Commercial Space – DDT&E 

Lessons Learned, ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210023013

3. NESC Technical Bulletin TB 20-01, Latching 

Safety-Critical Signals in Pyrotechnic Circuits. 

www.nasa.gov/nesc/technicalbulletins

4. Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) 

Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated 

Spacecraft Systems, NASA/TM-2008-215126/Vols I & II. 

ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080019635

 ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080019636

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-02

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Safety Considerations when Repurposing Commercially Available Flight 

Termination Systems from Uncrewed to Crewed Launch Vehicles 

Both uncrewed and crewed launch vehicles (LV) require Flight Termination Systems (FTS) for Range Safety to protect the 

public and ground assets in the event of a LV failure. Flight crew safety in this context is an added consideration for human 

spaceflight. The FTS is an electroexplosive system that activates destruct charges to rupture propellant tanks and shut down 

engines during flight termination. Commercially available FTS units have been developed for uncrewed applications and are 

now being repurposed to crewed applications. A consequence of using these systems is that they are designed for public 

and ground crew safety, though inadequate for flight crew safety. Missing are Human Space Flight (HSF) design controls for 

inadvertent activation during crewed ascent and protection for crew emergency abort. 

www.nasa.gov 3/17/23 DOC ID: 20230001890 

For information, contact thomas.k.evans@nasa.gov, christopher.j.iannello@nasa.gov

or robert.f.hodson@nasa.gov

Human Rated Design Features Checklist to Prevent Inadvertent Fire

Arm only when fire is imminent

Two-fault tolerance to Inadvertent Fire by inspection

Physical design separation and independence of FT strings

Isolation from other systems

Inhibit protections and monitoring

Independent monitoring of software functions

Activation margin controls internal to firing circuit

1 FT Must-Work Function at System Level, e.g. Flight Controls

System A1

System A2

Flight Control

Loss of Control

OR

Failure 1

Failure 2

with

results in

abort

After Failure 1 system fails safe. Failure 2 results in Loss of Control.

After Failure 1 system fails safe but silent (inhibits not monitored, 

failure not known). Failure 2 results in FTS activation.

1 FT Must-not-Work Function at Component Level, e.g. FTS Pyro Initiation

Inhibit 1

Inhibit 2

Pyro Safe

Inadvertent 

FTS Activation

AND

Failure 1

Failure 2 results in

LOC

example circuit card

with

CREW ABORT

LOSS OF CREW

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 23-01

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Including Key Design Features in Safety-Critical Pyrotechnic Firing Circuits

Pyrotechnic systems often fall into a unique category in that inadvertent activation of these systems resulting from a fault 

and/or lack of safe margins can lead directly to loss of crew. For example, untimely activation of pyrotechnics used for a 

flight termination system could override an abort capability. Over the years, NASA and the military have learned lessons 

about safe pyrotechnic circuit design and test, many of which are codified [1][2][3][4]. However, with NASA’s recent efforts 

to move toward a development model that leans more heavily on Commercial Partners, these requirements have not 

always been directly levied on projects, and in some cases have been misinterpreted. This bulletin describes key safety 

features of pyrotechnic firing circuit design and provides rationale for inclusion of each feature.

Background

The diagram below shows a simplified best-practices firing circuit 

depicting multiple inhibits, monitoring, and other protections.

Recommendations/Best Practices

for Key Safety Features 

1. Two-Fault Tolerance - Human space flight (HSF) systems 

should include sufficient inhibits to provide protection against 

inadvertent activation such that no two faults can result in loss 

of crew. Two-fault tolerance is required to prevent failure modes 

from defeating not only system level redundancies designed to 

enable mission completion, but also emergency systems designed 

to respond to catastrophic events in progress and enable crew 

survival. Two-fault tolerance is the front line of protection and can 

often be implemented with minimal hardware impact. For context, 

in recent HSF systems with a “fail-destruct” design, i.e., onefault tolerant, “inadvertent activation” failures were not classified 

as unique, allowing the system to be only single-fault tolerant to 

inadvertent fire. Nonetheless, these systems were compliant with 

requirements for one-fault tolerant, fail-safe systems. For a faildestruct system design, this meant direct loss of crew events could 

occur after a second failure. Whereas in two-fault tolerant systems, 

after the second failure there is still an emergency system (i.e., 

abort) designed to allow crew survival.

2. Arm Only When Firing - Arm the firing circuit only when firing 

is imminent. This is effectively design guidance for the first in the 

series shown in the diagram and ensures the firing circuit in the 

dashed box remains deenergized unless and until firing is intended. 

As context, in recent programs this arm inhibit function has not 

been implemented as the conventional successive application 

of power. Instead, it has been allowed to reside within ground 

service equipment as a ground crew safety feature or controlled via 

software with the firing output energized up to the final inhibits, i.e., 

power always applied up to the Hi-Side Inhibit in the diagram and 

ready-to-fire, regardless of intent. By using the staged application 

of power, we can use the precursor arm state as proof positive of a 

potential impending fire.

3. Inhibit Monitors - Monitoring circuits are critical to having 

insight into the health of inhibits that prevent inadvertent activation. 

Without these circuits the system’s fault tolerance cannot be fully 

verified on the configured system. Traditionally, to qualify as a 

safety-critical inhibit, the state of that inhibit must be monitored. 

4. Fault Containment Regions - To the extent possible both 

electrical and physical isolation are needed to contain faults. Fault 

containment regions (FCRs) should be designed in. The power and 

arming system should reside in separate FCRs. The hi-side and loside paths including control logic should also be isolated to prevent 

fault propagation and cascading or common-mode faults.

5. Know Your Margins - Margins on signals should be verified 

by test or analysis to ensure spurious noise will not initiate the 

pyrotechnics. On the firing lines, 16.5dB of margin to the no-fire 

limit of the initiator is required for human-rated system, and 6dB 

margin is required on control paths to firing circuits.

There are other recommended protections, tests, and procedures 

described in JSC 62809 that increase safety and mitigate inadvertent activation of pyrotechnic systems. For crewed programs and 

projects requiring safety critical pyrotechnics, the key electrical firing circuit design principles and hazard controls documented in JSC 

62809 should be levied as a requirement. 

References

1. JSC 62809 Human-rated Spacecraft Pyrotechnic Specification

2. LLIS 30602 NASA’s Entry into Commercial Space – DDT&E 

Lessons Learned, ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210023013

3. NESC Technical Bulletin TB 20-01, Latching 

Safety-Critical Signals in Pyrotechnic Circuits. 

www.nasa.gov/nesc/technicalbulletins

4. Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) 

Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated Spacecraft 

Systems, NASA/TM-2008-215126/Vols I & II. 

 ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080019635

 ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080019636

www.nasa.gov 3/15/23 DOC ID: 20230001889 

Notional Pyrotechnics Firing Circuit

Arm

Inhibit

Hi-Side

Inhibit

Lo-Side

Inhibit

Inhibit

Monitors

Additional

Circuit 

Protections

+

-

ARM

CMD FIRE 1

CMD

FIRE 2

CMD

Telemetry

Firing Circuit

Pyro

Initiator ExplosiveDevice ARM & Fire

Control

Power

Source

For information, contact thomas.k.evans@nasa.gov, christopher.j.iannello@nasa.gov

or robert.f.hodson@nasa.gov.

NESC Technical Bulletins FY23 Available at: NASA.GOV/NESC
Building a Community of Practice

Top Left: GSFC’s Jordan Effron 

builds a multi-layer insulation 

blanket during a hands-on 

short course.

Top Right: Dr. Bhanu Sood 

discusses GSFC technology 

development strategy and 

technical thrusts during a 

lunchtime talk.

Bottom: Students and early 

career engineers meet with 

senior NASA engineers 

during the inaugural “speed 

mentoring” session.

The Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop (TFAWS) is an 

annual event cosponsored by the NESC's Thermal Control & 

Protection, Environmental Control & Life Support, Aerosciences, and Cryogenics Technical Discipline Teams in collaboration with the TFAWS Steering Committee. It is well known for 

a diverse set of events and remains a model for Community 

of Practice technical discipline workshops. Originally devised 

as an analysis tool training opportunity for new engineers, 

TFAWS has grown in scope over more than three decades to 

include a variety of activities including training, theory-based 

short courses, paper sessions, student posters, center tours, 

and vendor presentations. Most important though, it remains 

an excellent forum for technical interchange between thermal, 

fluids, cryogenics, and aerothermal professionals from across 

NASA, other U.S. government agencies, industry, and academia. After three virtual workshops due to the COVID pandemic, TFAWS resumed as an in-person event in 2023 under 

the planning leadership of GSFC, this year’s host center.

TFAWS has become known as a forum to train the next generation of engineers. A poster session gave students an opportunity to showcase their work and build connections with engineers in government and industry. A “speed mentoring” event 

was initiated this year and gave many early career engineers 

and students an opportunity to benefit from the experience of 

senior engineers and leaders.

This year’s event drew a total of 350 attendees representing 

NASA, the aerospace industry, academia, and international 

participants from 23 countries. The 4-day workshop consisted 

of 80 paper presentations, 16 short courses and panel discussions, 7 analysis tool and hardware hands-on short courses, 

14 vendor participants, and 13 hardware and analysis tool 

vendor presentations. Tours highlighting GSFC facilities were 

provided the day after the workshop adjourned. 

48 Discipline Focus - Flight Mechanics Discipline Focus - Thermal Control & Protection 49

The NESC Flight Mechanics Technical Discipline Team (TDT) 

provides support to all NASA Mission Directorates and 

throughout all mission phases. Highlights from this past year 

include three critical program support assessments, new discipline-advancing capabilities in simulation tools, and a preview 

of future efforts by the TDT to capture knowledge and expertise to pass on to the next generation.

Independent modeling and simulation (M&S) enables new insights into critical subsystem designs and offers opportunities for 

analyses to reduce risk acceptance 

for programs. Several ongoing assessments have contributed to 

improved flight certification processes and risk reduction. The 

Flight Mechanics TDT sponsored 

improvements to simulation tools 

that enabled new solutions to 

complex problems, and recent NESC Academy recordings 

captured the latest advancements in the discipline.

The TDT supported the 

Commercial Crew Program by independently 

modeling and simulating 

commercial providers' 

trajectory designs and 

on-board deorbit, entry, 

descent, and landing 

software. This past year, 

the team assessed the 

return of additional crew 

on commercial capsules 

for contingency scenarios and used independent simulation 

analyses to confirm this capability poses no significant changes in splashdown conditions, thus ensuring additional options 

for returning crew safely if the primary return vehicle is disabled. Additionally, the NESC is providing key assessments 

for manual control using a "paper pilot" based on actual pilot 

responses. This study enabled manual control as a viable survival scenario if the flight computer fails during deorbit, entry, 

descent, and landing phases of flight. These efforts contributed to an independent verification and validation of commercial 

providers' designs that supported certification of commercial 

flights to and from the ISS.

Standing up a new independent M&S effort in support of the 

Mars Ascent Vehicle, a critical element delivering Martian soil 

and atmosphere samples for eventual return to Earth, provides 

value and increases confidence in the design of this key element for the Mars Sample Return Campaign. The Flight Mechanics team is contributing unique methodologies for studying 

the challenging dynamics of this two-stage solid motor design 

where the second stage is unguided and spin-stabilized.

Independent M&S of key staging and separation events for 

the SLS has resulted in affirmation of the SLS trajectory and 

guidance, navigation and control design. Flight Mechanics 

TDT members contributed analyses to evaluate the heliocentric disposal of the Interim Cyrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS).

This past year, the TDT also completed an assessment 

that explored the interoperability between common mission 

analysis tools and enabled trajectory sharing between tools to 

solve more complex mission design problems (page 31). An 

NESC Technical Bulletin (page 47) and Innovative Technique 

(page 65) have been published on this topic.

New NESC Academy recordings on trajectory optimization 

tools and frameworks, electric aircraft sizing methodologies, 

system optimization, and aerodynamic decelerator systems 

were important knowledge capture and transfer initiatives. 

These recordings are available to help train and educate engineers on the tools and processes NESC teams will use for 

future independent M&S efforts.

Reducing Risks Through Independent M&S

Heather M. Koehler

NASA Technical Fellow for Flight Mechanics

Steven L. Rickman

NASA Technical Fellow for Thermal Control & Protection

ICPS Ballistic Lunar Transit Geometry

Sun-Earth Rotating Frame

200d Propagation of Artemis I Launch Period

Sun-Earth Rotating Frame

4

2

0

-2

-4

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -4 -2 0 2 4

Q2

Q3

Q1

Q4

to Sun

0.5

1.0

0.0

-0.5

1.0

1.5

II I

III IV
Understanding Risk, Artificial Intelligence, 

and Improving Software Quality

The Code Analysis Pipeline: Static Analysis Tool 

for IV&V and Software Quality Improvement 

The Code Analysis Pipeline (CAP) is an open-source tool architecture that supports software development and assurance 

activities, improving overall software quality. The Independent 

Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program is using CAP to 

support software asurance on the Human Landing System, 

Gateway, Exploration Ground Systems, Orion, and Roman. 

CAP supports the configuration and automated execution of 

multiple static code analysis tools to identify potential code defects, generate code metrics that indicate potential areas of 

quality concern (e.g., cyclomatic complexity), and execute any 

other tool that analyzes or processes source code. The TDT is 

focused on integrating Modified Condition/Decision Coverage 

analysis support for coverage testing. Results from tools are 

consolidated into a central database and presented in context 

through a user interface that supports review, query, reporting, 

and analysis of results as the code matures.

The tool architecture is based on an industry standard DevOps 

approach for continuous building of source code and running 

of tools. CAP integrates with GitHub for source code control, 

uses Jenkins to support automation of analysis builds, and 

leverages Docker to create standard and custom build environments that support unique mission needs and use cases. 

Improving Software Process & Sharing Best Practices

The TDT has captured the best practice knowledge from 

across the centers in NPR 7150.2, NASA Software Engineering 

Requirements, and NASA-HDBK-2203, NASA Software Engineering and Assurance Handbook (https://swehb.nasa.gov.) 

Two APPEL training classes have been developed and shared 

with several organizations to give them the foundations in the 

NPR and software engineering management. The TDT established several subteams to help programs/projects as they tackle software architecture, project management, requirements, 

cybersecurity, testing and verification, and programmable logic 

controllers. Many of these teams have developed guidance and 

best practices, which are documented in NASA-HDBK-2203 

and on the NASA Engineering Network.

NPR 7150.2 and the handbook outline best practices over the 

full lifecycle for all NASA software. This includes requirements 

development, architecture, design, implementation, and verification. Also covered, and equally important, are the supporting activities/functions that improve quality, including software 

assurance, safety configuration management, reuse, and software acquisition. Rationale and guidance for the requirements 

are addressed in the handbook that is internally and externally 

accessible and regularly updated as new information, tools, 

and techniques are found and used.

The Software TDT deputies train software engineers, systems 

engineers, chief engineers, and project managers on the NPR 

requirements and their role in ensuring these requirements 

are implemented across NASA centers. Additionally, the TDT 

deputies train software technical leads on many of the advanced management aspects of a software engineering effort, 

including planning, cost estimating, negotiating, and handling 

change management.

Dr. Lorraine E. Prokop

NASA Technical Fellow for Software

50 Discipline Focus - Software Discipline Focus - Software 51

Erroneous or Silent? Where in the Code?

Erroneous Output,

"Unexpected Behavior"

87%

Fail Silent,

"Crash"

13%

Command

Input

8%

Sensor

Input

15%

Data

15%

Reboot Recoverability 

for Eroneous Situations

Missing 

Code?

Unknown 

Unknowns?

Erroneous Not 

Recoverable 

by Reboot

98%

Erroneous 

Recoverable

by Reboot

2%

Code/Logic

62%

Missing

Code

36%

Unknown Unknown

19%

Other

Causes

64%

Could/Should 

Have Known

81%

The software discipline has broad involvement across each of 

the NASA Mission Directorates. Some recent discipline focus 

and development areas are highlighted below, along with a look 

at the Software Technical Discipline Team's (TDT) approach to 

evolving discipline best practices toward the future.

Understanding Automation Risk 

Software creates automation. Reliance on that automation 

is increasing the amount of software in NASA programs.This 

year, the software team examined historical software incidents 

in aerospace to characterize how, why, and where software or 

automation is mostly likely to fail. The goal is to better engineer software to minimize the risk of errors, improve software 

processes, and better architect software for resilience to errors (or improve fault-tolerance should errors occur). 

Some key findings shown in the above charts, indicate that 

software more often does the wrong thing rather than just 

crash. Rebooting was found to be ineffective when software 

behaves erroneously. Unexpected behavior was mostly attributed to the code or logic itself, and about half of those 

instances were the result of missing software—software not 

present due to unanticipated situations or missing requirements. This may indicate that even fully tested software is exposed to this significant class of error. Data misconfiguration 

was a sizeable factor that continues to grow with the advent of 

more modern data-driven systems. A final subjective category

assessed was “unknown unknowns”—things that could not 

have been reasonably anticipated. These accounted for 19% 

of software incidents studied.

The software team is using and sharing these findings to improve best practices. More emphasis is being placed on the 

importance of complete requirements, off-nominal test campaigns, and “test as you fly” using real hardware in the loop. 

When designing systems for fault tolerance, more consideration should be given to detecting and correcting for erroneous behavior versus just checking for a crash. Less confidence 

should be placed on rebooting as an effective recovery strategy. Backup strategies for automations should be employed 

for critical applications—considering the historic prevalence 

of absent software and unknown unknowns. More information 

can be found in NASA/TP-20230012154, Software Error Incident Categorizations in Aerospace.

Employing AI and Machine Learning Techniques

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) 

techniques has allowed NASA to examine data in new ways that 

were not previously possible. While NASA has been employing 

autonomy since its inception, AI/ML techniques provide teams 

the ability to expand the use of autonomy outside of previous 

bounds. The Agency has been working on AI ethics frameworks 

and examining standards, procedures, and practices, taking 

security implications into account. While AI/ML generally uses 

nondeterministic statistical algorithms that currently limit its 

use in safety-critical flight applications, it is used by NASA in 

more than 400 AI/ML projects aiding research and science. The 

Agency also uses AI/ML Communities of Practice for sharing 

knowledge across the centers. The TDT surveyed AI/ML work 

across the Agency and summarized it for trends and lessons.

Common usages of AI/ML include image recognition and identification. NASA Earth science missions use AI/ML to identify 

marine debris, measure cloud thickness, and identify wildfire 

smoke (examples are shown in the satellite images below). 

This reduces the workload on personnel. There are many applications of AI/ML being used to predict atmospheric physics. One example is hurricane track and intensity prediction. 

Another example is predicting planetary boundary layer thickness and comparing it against measurements, and those predictions are being fused with live data to improve the performance over previous boundary layer models.

Examples of how NASA uses AI/ML. Satellite images of clouds with

estimation of cloud thickness (left) and wildfire detection (right).

NASA-HDBK-2203, NASA Software Engineering and Assurance Handbook (https://swehb.nasa.gov) 
52 Discipline Focus - Loads & Dynamics Discipline Focus - Loads & Dynamics 53

Mentoring the Next Generation of Engineers 

and Improving Shock Testing Standards

Dr. Dexter Johnson

NASA Technical Fellow for Loads & Dynamics

The Future of the SLAMMS ECC

The SLAMMS ECC will continue to evolve as discussions with 

the ECE leadership team and Technical Fellows continue towards mapping its future. SLAMMS is igniting cross-Agency 

collaboration for future generations. Its current goals include 

communication and collaboration among organizations, professional growth of early career engineers, knowledge capturing 

for the next generation of NASA engineers, and developing and 

retaining engineers in the specific SLAMMS disciplines. It will 

nurture the technical, professional, and personal development 

of NASA’s next generation of SLAMMS discipline leaders.

Updating Guidance on Shock Qualification

and Acceptance Test Requirements

The L&D TDT has completed work that will have a positive 

impact on shock testing of NASA flight hardware. Pyroshock 

is the transient response of a structure to loading induced by 

activation of attached or incorporated pyrotechnic devices. 

Typical pyrotechnic devices include frangible bolts, separation 

nuts, and pin pullers that are used to assemble, separate, 

and reconfigure spaceflight hardware during a mission. 

Shocks can easily propagate through structure and damage 

sensitive components. Thus, successful pyroshock testing is 

considered essential to mission success. At the request of the 

Gateway Program Chief Engineer, the NASA Chief Engineer 

initiated an inquiry to reevaluate shock testing approaches for 

both unit and major assembly flight hardware and requested 

recommendations for potential revisions to NASA-STD-7003B, 

Pyroshock Test Criteria, that would clarify the guidance and 

applicability to new programs. The work delves into topics of 

shock acceptance and qualification testing for unit and major 

assemblies, shock test tolerances, shaker shock testing, and 

the distinction between mechanical shock and pyroshock 

testing. It also provides recommendations for their inclusion in 

the next Agency-wide revision of NASA-STD-7003B. 

Current NASA-STD-7003B Requirements

Unit and major assembly flight hardware acceptance and 

qualification testing are discussed in NASA-STD-7003B. It 

requires that all units go through shock qualification testing, 

with few exceptions. The purpose of a qualification test is to 

verify the design integrity of the flight hardware. The standard 

calls for pyroshock qualification testing of nonflight hardware 

for externally induced environments to be performed with a 

3 dB margin added to the maximum predicted environment 

(MPE), with two shocks per each orthogonal axis. Qualification 

tests are performed on hardware that will not be flown but is 

manufactured using the same drawings, materials, tooling, 

processes, inspection methods, and personnel competency 

as used for the flight hardware. The flight hardware is not 

recommended to go through shock test, therefore, it lacks 

workmanship screening testing. The required random vibration 

(RV) test is considered to be a partial workmanship screening, 

covering only up to 2000 Hz. A full workmanship screening test 

for unique and sensitive hardware that may have modes above 

2000 Hz needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by an 

expert in pyroshock dynamics and approved within a program’s 

risk management system and/or governing board.

The major assembly acceptance and qualification testing are 

not recommended, considering that the MPE and design margin 

cannot be demonstrated at the system-level tests. The major 

assembly unmargined testing, however, may achieve three 

objectives. First, the functional demonstration of shock separation 

devices—probably the most important part of the major 

assembly level testing—demonstrates the source electrical and 

mechanical hardware functions as expected, and the interface 

separates without any issues. Second, the major assembly 

testing provides the validation of the unit shock environments. 

Awards presented by Dr. Dexter Johnson. Left: "Best Presentation" (Mitchell 

Haglund-GSFC) Right: "Best Poster" (Tessa Fedotowsky-MSFC). 

The year 2023 was productive for the Loads & Dynamics 

(L&D) Technical Discipline Team (TDT). New shock and modal 

analysis techniques were developed and mentoring the next 

generation of NASA discipline experts continued. Additionally, 

NESC Technical Bulletin No. 23-3, New Transient Finite Energy 

Shock Prediction Methodology, was released.

Early Career Community Nurtures Development 

of NASA’s Future Discipline Leaders 

NASA has acknowledged the need for “attracting and 

advancing a highly skilled, competent, and diverse workforce 

in order to cultivate an innovative work environment...” as 

stated in Objective 3.1 of the 2014 NASA Strategic Plan. 

A survey conducted in 2014 by Emerge, the early-career 

professional group at JSC, showed that recent hires believe 

that “communication and collaboration amongst 

organizations” is a key area of improvement, 

while “lack of opportunities for professional 

growth” is the top reason why they 

would consider leaving the Agency. 

This, when coupled with NASA's 

aging workforce (the average age 

as of 2016 was 49), stresses the 

importance of capturing knowledge 

to pass along to the next generation 

of NASA engineers.

The Structures, Loads and Dynamics, 

Mechanical Systems, and Materials 

(SLAMMS) disciplines have also been 

identified as critical fields for the advancement 

of NASA’s strategic vision, which emphasizes the 

importance of developing and retaining engineers in those 

areas. Consequently, the SLAM(M)S Steering Committee 

(Materials was not initially included), comprising center 

SLAMS Division/Branch Chiefs and NASA Technical Fellows, 

formed the Young Professionals Forum in 2012, which 

evolved into the current Early Career Forum (ECF) in 2017, 

and was expanded to provide year-round activities (e.g., 

monthly meetings, training opportunities) for the Early Career 

Community (ECC). 

Over the lifetime of the ECC, the SLAMS Steering Committee 

was dissolved, and the stewardship of the ECC relied on the 

Technical Fellows, who empowered ECC leaders to take on 

the primary responsibility of planning and running the ECC 

and ECF events.

Today’s SLAMMS Early Career Community 

Within the past few years, a new SLAMMS Division/Branch 

Chief collaboration group was formed, called the SLAMMS 

Leadership Working Group (LWG), and is led by James 

Loughlin, GSFC Mechanical Systems Division Chief, with 

co-lead Elonso Rayos, JSC Structures Engineering Assistant Division Chief. The LWG is a forum focused on capability 

sustainment, discipline technical challenges, and workforce 

concerns. For example, disparate Agency technical resource 

access is discussed, collaboration is coordinated, and critical 

gaps in expertise are filled using cross-Agency cooperation.

The current SLAMMS ECE leadership team includes Khadijah 

Shariff (JSC-Structures), Dr. Matthew Chamberlain (LaRCLoads & Dynamics), Dr. Jonathan Sauder (JPL-Mechanical 

Systems), and Cassie Smith (JPL-Mechanical Systems). 

NASA Technical Fellows supporting SLAMMS are 

Deneen Taylor (Structures), Dr. Dexter Johnson 

(Loads & Dynamics), Dr. Michael Dube 

(Mechanical Systems), and Dr. Bryan 

McEnerney (Materials). 

The SLAMMS Early Career Forum

The ECF is the annual “face-to-face” 

workshop for the community. The 

ECF is held at a different NASA center each year and features technical 

presentations by early career engineers 

(ECE), splinter sessions with NASA 

Technical Fellows, mentor presentations, 

facility tours, networking events, design challenges, and evening social activities to advance the 

SLAMMS disciplines and develop NASA’s future workforce. 

The ECF features technical presentations given by the ECEs 

to their peers, senior engineers, and Technical Fellows. 

The 12th Annual SLAMMS ECF was held at MSFC and virtually. 

Sixty-six ECEs, Technical Fellows, TDT mentors, and discipline managers from the SLAMMS LWG were in attendance. 

ECEs from 8 centers made 16 technical presentations and 18 

posters, which were ranked by mentors for the top awards. 

Multiple splinter sessions provided ECEs with opportunities to 

ask career-related advice from Technical Fellows, project and 

systems management, and individuals experienced in design, 

analysis, and testing. In addition, there was a detailed discussion for each of the technical disciplines represented at the 

forum, and multiple site tours were provided.

continued...
54 Discipline Focus - Loads & Dynamics Discipline Focus - Structures 55

Advances in Understanding 

COPV Structural Life

Deneen M. Taylor

NASA Technical Fellow for Structures

The Structures Technical Discipline Team (TDT) was involved 

in numerous investigations this past year, but composites, 

fracture mechanics, and pressure vessels dominate the list. 

All three of these specialties are important to composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV). One of the TDT's most 

important findings this year was the exposure of an inherent 

vulnerability that underpredicts structural life, driven by current 

specifications and testing standards for COPVs. This NESC 

work and its recommendations will significantly improve safety 

and mission success for all current and future COPV operations throughout the aerospace community. 

Damage Tolerance Analysis Standard 

Can Be Unconservative for COPVs

COPVs consist of a metallic liner that contains the fluid or 

gas and a composite overwrap that provides strength (Figure 

1). The operational pressure cycles for a spaceflight COPV 

generally starts with an initial overpressure, called an autofrettage cycle, that yields the metallic liner, while the stronger 

composite overwrap remains elastic. Liner yielding during 

autofrettage results in a small amount of liner growth, resulting in liner compression when the COPV is depressurized after autofrettage. The subsequent operational cycles can be 

either elastic (elastically responding COPV) or elastic-plastic 

(plastically responding COPV).

The damage tolerance life evaluation of spaceflight COPVs 

is governed by the ANSI/AIAA-S-081B, Space Systems–

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels. This standard 

provides the baseline requirements for damage tolerance 

analyses (DTA) of COPVs with elastically responding liners. 

The standard allows the DTA to consider the influence of the 

elastic-plastic autofrettage cycle independently of the elastically responding cycles. The elastically responding cycles are 

permitted to be analyzed using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) tools like the NASGRO crack-growth analysis software. The standard states that the DTA must not consider any 

beneficial influences of the autofrettage cycle on the subseFigure 1. Illustration of COPV 

major components.

Δa=0.0077 inch

Δa=0.0022 inch

a=0.025 inch a=0.024 inch

2c=0.050 inch 2c=0.050 inch

With Autofrettage Without Autofrettage

Figure 2. Fracture surfaces from two identical tests showing crack growth (Δa), 

with and without an initial autofrettage cycle.

Dr. David Dawicki employs digital image correlation to

evaluate strain in metallic coupons.

The Gateway Program has benefitted from the updated guidance

recommended for NASA-STD-7003B.

HLS could benefit from the updated guidance recommended

for NASA-STD-7003B. Credit: Blue Origin

Third, the major assembly testing provides transfer functions 

(TF) that may help to estimate the attenuation—and in some 

cases structural amplifications—throughout the system with all 

assemblies in flight configuration. NASA-STD-7003B contains 

discussions for the first two major assembly test objectives. 

However, there are no discussions on the third test objective 

related to the TFs. The TFs provide qualitative assessment of 

shock propagation paths and attenuations at joints and interfaces. The TFs may be used qualitatively as attenuation is highly 

dependent on the materials and joint construction and may be 

different if there are changes in the system configuration. 

Suggestions for Improving NASA-STD-7003B

The shock tolerance specified in NASA-STD-7003B is ±6 dB 

from 100 Hz to 3 kHz and +9/-6 dB above 3 kHz. The constant ±6 dB tolerance bandwidths across all frequencies are 

possible, as many existing shock simulation systems are able 

to simulate shock signatures that fall within these tolerances 

without difficulty. These tolerances are based on practical test 

implementation and shock simulation equipment consideration. The tolerance tightening should be considered at the 

flight hardware resonant frequencies to avoid over/under testing. However, if detonator or explosive shock simulation systems are used to qualify flight hardware, the shock tolerances 

above 3 kHz may be kept at +9/-6 dB. 

Measurements from many different pyro/non-pyro separation 

systems have been shown to have broader shock signatures 

and do not support the mechanical shock as being applicable 

to low- and mid-frequency shocks only. The standard discusses 

this topic and has an example of far field SRS indicating shock 

energy above 2 kHz. The future revision should clarify the applicability of the mechanical shocks to be broader and not to be 

limited to 2 kHz and below (see figure at left).

Even though shaker shock testing has been used in the past 

and is still used by some NASA organizations and contractors, there are multiple technical issues with this type of testing. The shaker-generated shock signatures in the low- and 

mid-frequency range (typically up to ~2 kHz) provide severe 

shock environments that may lead to structural failures. Most 

shakers are also not able to generate SRS above ~2 kHz, 

therefore, shaker shock test is deficient in meeting the shock 

requirement up to 10 kHz frequency. NASA-STD-7003B does 

not recommend the shaker method of shock testing due to 

the above limitations. This should be emphasized more in the 

standard. The shaker shock simulation test may be used if 

it is able to generate time histories that resemble signatures 

generated by space separation devices, and SRS levels meet 

the entire frequency range requirements.

For the next NASA-STD-7003B revision, recommendations 

are being made to include acceptance RV testing for partial 

workmanship screening testing, add the TFs to be used as 

qualitative information in assessing the attenuation in the 

structural shock paths, change the shock tolerance to ±6 dB 

across all frequencies, and consider mechanical shocks to be 

broader and not limited to low- and mid-frequency SRSs.

In summary, the updated guidance provides clarification to the 

question/uncertainty of the applicability of historical guidance to 

current programs, while ensuring proper applicability to future 

programs. This work directly benefitted the Gateway Program, 

and could potentially benefit the Human Lander System (HLS).

References:

1. Kolaini, A.R., Kinney, T., and Johnson, D.: Guidance on 

Shock Qualification and Acceptance Test Requirements. 

SCLV, June 27-29, 2023, EL Segundo, CA. Available from: 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230009008 

2. NASA-STD-7003B, “Pyroshock Test Criteria,” June 11, 2020.

An example shock response spectrum (SRS) obtained from a mechanical shock 

separation system, indicating a broad signature is produced by pyro devices. 

SRS (g)

Frequency (Hz)

MPE with Margin

SRS (Response)

SRS Envelope (MPE)

continued...

continued...
56 Discipline Focus - Structures Discipline Focus - Structures 57

A Brief Introduction to Damage Tolerance for COPVs Future of the Structures Discipline

quent elastically responding cycles but does not consider the 

possibility of detrimental influences of the autofrettage cycle.

In the study, Unconservatism of Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Post Autofrettage (NASA/TM-20230013348), 

an NESC team conducted a combined experimental and analytical investigation into the influence of the autofrettage cycle on subsequent elastic cycles. Tests were conducted on 

coupons with part-through surface cracks that were subjected 

to cyclic loading that was representative of the operational cycles of a COPV liner. Half of the tests were conducted with 

the full loading history (including the autofrettage cycle) and 

the other half were identical except that the autofrettage cycle 

was omitted. Cracks in the tests with the autofrettage cycle 

grew faster than cracks in the identical tests that excluded the 

autofrettage cycle, as shown by the fracture surfaces in the 

photomicrographs (Figure 2). The distance between the mark 

left by the autofrettage cycle and the ductile fracture region 

was the amount of crack growth (Δa=0.0077 inch) due to the 

LEFM cycles. Crack growth due to the LEFM cycles in the 

LEFM-only test was Δa=0.0022 inch, more than three times 

slower than that in the identical autofrettage plus LEFM test.

A validated finite element analysis and experimental measurements were used to evaluate the influence of the autofrettage 

cycle. The elastic-plastic autofrettage cycle was found to create a large region of plastic deformation ahead of the crack and 

blunted the crack tip. Previous fracture mechanics tests and 

analytical studies in the literature examined elastic overloads 

and found that plastic deformation ahead of the crack developed residual stresses that closed the crack surfaces, reducing 

the subsequent crack growth rate. However, the crack blunting 

allowed the crack to remain open for the entire loading, as illustrated by the finite element simulations of the crack surfaces at 

peak and minimum stress (Figure 3). The differences between 

the tests with and without the autofrettage cycle that were observed experimentally and simulated with a validated finite 

element analysis indicate that the damage tolerance analysis 

approach allowed by the standard can be unconservative. The 

NESC proposed an alternative damage tolerance analysis approach and recommended that the AIAA Aerospace Pressure 

Vessel Committee on standards update the ANSI/AIAA S-081B 

standard to address COPV liners with compressive stresses 

following the peak autofrettage stress.

With Autofrettage Without Autofrettage

Surface Crack Opening at Maximum Stress

Surface Crack Opening at Minimum Stress

Surface Crack Opening at Maximum Stress

Surface Crack Opening at Minimum Stress

-0.3 -0.3

-0.3

0.0015

0.0015

-0.0015

-0.0015 -0.0015

-0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

A COPV consists of a metallic liner with an exterior composite wrap. The composite 

provides strength, and the liner contains the compressed fluid or gas.

Results of a failure test. COPVs contain high pressure gases or 

fluids that can have tremendous explosive energy.

Computed tomography scan of a metallic liner

detecting a part-through crack.

Representative loading spectrum for an elastically responding 

COPV liner with an initial elastic-plastic cycle.

Strain (%)

Time (seconds) -0.2

0.4

0.0

0.6

0.2

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

1 mm

1 mm

1.606mm

0.486mm

Figure 3. Abaqus finite element analysis of crack growth with and without an autofrettage cycle. Y-axis indicates crack opening displacement and x-axis indicates crack length.

ANSI/AIAA S-081B standard, Space Systems–Composite 

Overwrapped Pressure Vessels, is a compilation of accepted 

practices for COPVs used in space applications developed as 

a collaboration of industry, government, and universities. The 

standard covers many aspects of COPVs including damage 

tolerance life analyses that are used for flight qualification 

overseen by fracture control boards. The standard for damage 

tolerance requires that the COPV “...survive four operational 

lifetimes with the largest crack in the metallic liner that can 

be missed by a nondestructive evaluation (NDE) subjected to 

bounding stresses representative of what the COPV experiences in its life (manufacturing, integration, operational including thermal and residual).” The operational life of a COPV liner 

typically includes an initial elastic-plastic cycle (autofrettage or 

proof) followed by other cycles that may be elastic (elastically 

responding liners) or elastic-plastic (plastically responding liners). A representative load spectrum is shown at right. During 

autofrettage, the COPV is pressurized to at least proof pressure to compress the liner inner surface, making it less susceptible to operational stresses. COPVs with elastically responding liners may be damage-tolerance qualified using LEFM 

analysis tools, but plastically responding liners must be damage-tolerance qualified by testing. Guidance on evaluating the 

appropriateness of LEFM tools for COPV damage tolerance 

was provided in NESC Technical Bulletin No. 21-04, Evaluating 

Appropriateness of LEFM Tools for COPV and Metal Pressure 

Vessel Damage Tolerance Life Verification Tolerance Life Verification and NASA/TM-2020-5006765/Volumes 1/2.

As the Agency moves more toward forming strategic industry 

partnerships with commercial contracts for new programs, the 

Structures TDT has highlighted the need for proper focus on 

appropriate requirements as the Team’s strategic vector. Although NASA Standards are often provided for reference, their 

prescriptive nature is not necessarily appropriate for use with 

commercial contracts. Industry partners and/or NASA team 

members create alternative standards, unique for each program, but there is inconsistency across different programs with 

respect to detailed requirements in these standards. Emerging 

technologies such as soft goods, large-scale deployable structures, inflatables, probabilistic analysis techniques, and additive manufactured hardware all drive unique requirements. 

The TDT identified the need for a tailoring guide, tied to mission priorities and risk postures, to assist with insight/oversight 

strategies for NASA programs. Using industry partners also 

means less NASA-owned hardware, which can lead to a loss 

of institutional knowledge.

Its imperative that Engineering Directorates at each center 

proactively look for in-house projects so the next generation 

of engineers have opportunities for hands-on experience developing, designing, and testing (DDT) flight hardware. This 

experience is the foundation necessary for NASA engineers 

to guide the commercial partners through their own DDT processes and to be able to provide appropriate verification and 

validation of NASA requirements. Structures TDT members 

form a diverse team crossing all centers and programs, facilitating good collaboration on requirement interpretation, which 

ultimately ensures safety of NASA crew and mission success 

of operations in these new commercial programs.

continued...
58 Discipline Focus - Environmental Control & Life Support Discipline Focus - Environmental Control & Life Support 59

As NASA continues to pursue new human missions to low 

Earth orbit, lunar orbit, the lunar surface, and on to Mars, the 

NESC continues to provide a robust technical resource to 

address critical challenges.

The NESC Environmental Control and Life Support Systems 

(ECLSS), Crew Systems, and Extravehicular Activity (EVA) 

discipline is led by the NASA Technical Fellow for ECLS, 

Dr. Morgan Abney, ECLSS & Crew Systems Deputy Dave 

Williams, Extravehicular & Human Surface Mobility Deputy 

Danielle Morris, and EVA Deputy Colin Campbell. In 2023, 

this team led assessments and provided support to the 

Commercial Crew Program, ISS, Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle, Extravehicular and Human Mobility Program, Gateway 

International Habitat, and Moon-to-Mars Program. Three of the 

most notable activities in 2023 are briefly described below.

Mitigation for Water in the Helmet During EVA

During EVA22 in 2013, water was observed in the helmet and 

assumed to be the result of a “burp” from the drink bag. No 

further investigation was pursued because water had been observed to some degree (water on visor, wet hair, etc.) on eight 

previous occasions. The result was a nearly catastrophic event 

during EVA23, where astronaut Luca Parmitano experienced 

dangerous quantities of water in his helmet. Both EVA23 and 

EVA35 in 2016 contributed to identification of drowning as a 

key risk, which resulted in several water mitigation approaches. Based on these approaches, the program determined the 

risk level to be acceptable for nominal EVA. However, in March 

2022, a crewmember returning from EVA80 noticed water accumulated on the visor of his helmet obstructing ~30-50% of 

his field of view. Due to the increasing complexity of EVA obAdvancing Human Spaceflight Safety

Dr. Morgan B. Abney

NASA Technical Fellow for Environmental Control & Life Support

jectives on EVA80 and forward, the ISS Program identified loss 

or reduction of visibility as a greater risk than previously recognized and sought to identify methods to prevent even small 

quantities of liquid water from forming in the helmet during 

EVA. The NESC was asked to provide support to the activity 

through modeling of the helmet and two-phase (water and oxygen) flow behavior in microgravity, through model validation 

testing, and through testing of mitigation hardware identified by 

the larger team. The model predictions provided a map (Figure 

1) of anticipated liquid water formations based on the contact 

angle between the face or head and the helmet surface. Based 

on the ISS helmet with no water mitigations, the model predicted that large blobs would most likely form bridges between the 

helmet and face and that rupture of those bridges would result 

in the majority of liquid transferring to the face. To mitigate this 

risk, the ISS EVA80 team devised a solution to add absorbent 

materials in the path of the oxygen and water entering the helmet. Following EVA23, the helmet absorption pad (HAP) was 

added for bulk water collection. The improved mitigation strategy based on EVA80 included a HAP extender (HAP-E) and a 

helmet absorption band (HAB) (Figure 2). The NESC provided 

modeling of the mitigation hardware and validation testing of 

the HAB configuration using flow conditions anticipated in ISS 

operation (Figure 3). The testing provided ground validation of 

the HAB performance. The HAB and HAP-E have both been 

implemented in flight. 

Evaluation of Terrestrial Portable Fire Extinguishers 

for Microgravity Applications

The tragic fire of Apollo 1 has, of necessity, instilled in NASA an 

enduring respect for the risk of fire in spacecraft. As such, robust fire detection and response systems have been a cornerstone of NASA-designed vehicles. Portable fire extinguishers 

(PFE) are a fundamental fire response capability of spacecraft 

and both carbon dioxide and water-based PFEs have been 

used by NASA historically. However, terrestrial-based PFEs, 

particularly those using new halon-based suppressants, may 

provide improved capability beyond the NASA state-of-theart. In 2023, the NESC sought to evaluate the effectiveness 

of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) PFEs in microgravity. The 

team developed an analytical model to predict the discharge 

rate of three terrestrial COTS PFEs containing CO2, HFC227ea, and Novec 1230. The model considered the internal 

geometry of the PFEs, the material properties of the suppressants and their corresponding PFE tanks, and the effects of 

microgravity and in-flight perturbations. The results predicted 

that for PFE tanks containing dip tubes, like those for HFC227ea and Novec 1230 where nitrogen gas is used as a pressurant, microgravity plays a significant role in the discharge 

performance due to two-phase flow. Figure 4 shows the various equilibrium configurations based on gravity and perturbations. As a comparison, the analysis predicts >80% discharge 

of the HFC-227ea in the COTS PFE within ~30 seconds with 

the remainder discharging over ~0.5-1 hours when discharged 

in a terrestrial fire (Figure 4A), while only 60-80% discharges 

in 30 seconds with the remainder discharging over 1-2 hours 

in microgravity (Figure 4C).

Based on this analysis, the use of terrestrially designed PFEs 

containing gaseous pressurant over a liquid suppressant will 

likely result in decreased initial discharge of the suppressant 

and significantly longer total discharge times in microgravity 

as compared to terrestrial discharge performance. Testing is 

ongoing to validate the models using a custom-designed PFE 

test stand (Figures 5 and 6) that enables multi-configuration 

testing of COTS PFEs.

Figure 3. HAB ground validation testing under trickle water flow conditions.

Figure 5. (left) PFE test stand for model validation. Design prevents directional 

load effects to enable accurate mass measurement during PFE discharge. 

Figure 6. (right) Insulated PFE housing and remote discharge control allows for 

accurate, real-time thermal measurements during validation testing.

Figure 1. Map of predicted water formations within a helmet as a function of face/head and helmet contact angles. 

Dashed rectangle indicates the expected domain of the ISS helmet with no water mitigations.

Figure 2. Water mitigation strategy for the ISS helmet: a) sketch of HAP, HAP-E, and HAB, b) side view of early prototype, c) bottom view of early prototype.

Helmet 0 (deg.)

Face/Head 0 (deg.)

HAP-E HAB

Comm

Cap

Vent

Pad

HAP

HAB

HAP

T2 Port HAP-E

A B C D E F

Figure 4. Equilibrium two-phase configurations of nitrogen (white)-pressurized 

liquid suppressant (blue). A) PFE held nominally with nozzle up in 1-g with no 

perturbations, B) PFE held inverted in 1-g or in 0-g where liquid preferentially 

accumulates away from the dip tube entrance with no perturbations, C) PFE in 0-g 

at the statistically most probable state with no perturbations, D) PFE in 0-g where 

nitrogen preferentially accumulates at ends of the PFE with no perturbations, 

E) PFE in any level gravity with significant perturbations (shaken up), and 

F) statistically most probable state in 0-g following complete discharge.

continued...
60 Discipline Focus - Environmental Control & Life Support Discipline Focus - Environmental Control & Life Support 61

Standardized Abrasion, Cut, and Thermal Testing

for Spacesuit Gloves and Materials 

State-of-the-art spacesuit gloves have been optimized for the 

challenges of ISS. Artemis missions call for high-frequency 

EVAs at the lunar south pole, where temperatures in the permanently shadowed region (PSR) will expose crew gloves 

to temperatures lower than ever previously experienced and 

where frequent and repeated exposure to regolith dust and 

rocks will present significantly increased risk for abrasion and 

cuts. With the development of new spacesuits by commercial 

partners, inexpensive and repeatable test methods are needed to characterize, evaluate, and compare gloves and glove 

materials for their thermal performance at PSR temperatures 

and for their resistance to lunar regolith abrasion and cuts. To 

address these needs, the NESC is leading a team to develop 

standardized test methods in coordination with ASTM International Committee F47 on Commercial Spaceflight. 

Three standardized methods are currently in development. 

The first method seeks to standardize lunar dust abrasion 

testing of glove (and suit) materials based on adapted “tumble 

testing” first proposed at NASA in 1990. The NASA-designed 

tumbler (Figure 7) enables testing of six samples per run and 

compares pre- and post-tumbled tensile strength of materials 

to compare abrasion resistance. The method is highly controlled using a commercially available tumble medium and lunar regolith simulant. 

Because material properties change with temperature, the 

second method seeks to develop a standardized approach to 

evaluate the cut resistance of glove materials at relevant cryogenic temperatures. The method is an adaptation of ASTM 

F2992 Standard Test Method for Measuring Cut Resistance of 

Materials Used in Protective Clothing with Tomodynamometer 

(TDM-100) Test Equipment. In order to allow for cut evaluation 

at cryogenic temperatures, the TDM-100 cut fixture was modified to include channels for liquid nitrogen flow (Figure 8A), 

thereby cooling the test material to 77 K.

The third method seeks to evaluate the thermal performance 

of gloves down to PSR requirement temperature of 48 K. Historical thermal testing of gloves was conducted with human-inthe-loop (HITL) testing for both radiative and conductive cooling. Conductive cooling was accomplished by having the test 

subject grab thermally controlled “grasp objects” and maintain 

contact until their skin temperature reached 283 K (50 oF) or 

until they felt sufficient discomfort to end the test themselves. 

While HITL testing is critical for final certification of gloves, iterative design and development testing would benefit from a 

faster, less expensive test. To meet this need, the NESC is 

developing a glove thermal test that uses a custom manikin 

hand designed by Thermetrics, LLC (Figure 8B).

The manikin hand is outfitted with temperature and heat flux 

sensors to monitor heat transfer to the hand. The hand is 

placed within a spacesuit glove and thermally controlled with 

internal water flow to simulate human heat generation. The 

Cryogenic Ice Transfer, Acquisition, Development, and Excavation Laboratory (CITADEL) chamber at JPL is then used to 

test the glove thermal performance at a range of temperatures 

from 200 K down to 48 K. Thermal performance is evaluated 

to mimic historical HITL testing under both radiative and conductive cooling. Conductive cooling is accomplished through 

a temperature-controlled touch object and is evaluated using 

two touch pressures. All three methods will be incorporated 

as ASTM F47 standard test procedures following NASA and 

ASTM committee review and approvals (targeting 2024). 

Figure 7. Hardware used in the tumble test method. Tumbler apparatus (left). 

Tumbler with panel removed to show lunar regolith simulant and commercially 

available tumbler media (top right). Tumbler panel showing lunar regolith 

simulant (bottom right).

Figure 8. A) Mandrel used in cut testing as designed for ambient testing (left) and 

cryogenic testing (right). Flow channels allow for liquid nitrogen flow to cool the 

material sample to cryogenic temperatures. B) Prototype of Thermetrics, LLC 

custom manikin hand for spacesuit glove thermal testing.

ASA astronaut and Expedition 68 Flight Engineer Nicole 

Mann is pictured in her Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) 

during an EVA. The NESC has recently contributed to 

astronaut safety investigations of water accumulating in EMU 

helmets during EVAs, and developing EMU gloves for use in 

the harsh conditions of the lunar south pole.

continued...

A

B
Identification of Noise Sources During Launch 

Using Phased Array Microphone Systems

Figure 3. Comparison between different beamform schemes at a fixed 

f=1338 Hz with array center 100 ft. horizontal and 10 ft. above LRAD speaker.

(a) Conventional 1338 Hz

Look angle in y (deg) -10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

(b) Func-Orth 1338 Hz

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

87

86

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Look angle in x (deg)

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Look angle in x (deg)

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Look angle in x (deg)

(c) SEM f=1338 Hz

Look angle in y (deg) -10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Identified Source

Reflection

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Figure 4. Scaffold system used to mount MPA and location of the array with 

respect to the SSC A-1 test stand. Right Image Credit: Google Maps

Phased

Array Cable

Route

Cabinet

A-1 Test Stand

Phased

Array

460-ft

Open Channel Flume

Figure 5. Noise sources identified at the indicated third-octave 

center frequencies using functional-orthogonal beamform.

-15

Look angle in y (deg)

Look angle in x (deg) Look angle in x (deg)

-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20

-10

0

 10

 15

(c) f=1024Hz

(a) f=128Hz

(d) f=2048Hz

(b) f=5128Hz

Ground

Reflection

Ground

Reflection

Ground

Reflection

10dB

Look angle in x (deg)

Delt: 2.50s - 3.00s, ImageNo: 574, FuncOrth nu:20 f=512

Look angle in y (deg)

95

96

97

99

100

101

102

104

103

98

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25 t: 2.5s-3s

Look angle in x (deg)

Delt: 3.50s - 4.00s, ImageNo: 599, FuncOrth nu:20 f=512

108

109

110

112

113

114

115

116

111

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

t: 3.5s-4s

Look angle in x (deg)

Delt: 3.00s-3.50s, ImageNo: 586, FuncOrth nu:20 f=512

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

t: 3s-3.5s

Figure 6. Time evolution of noise source generation during the NG-19 launch. The acoustic intensity of the redirected 

flow from the flame trench opening evolves to become a much stronger noise source, while acoustics from the plume are 

effectively mitigated by the sound suppression on the launch pad surface.

62 Innovative Techniques Innovative Techniques 63

Every part of a launch vehicle, launch pad, and ground operation equipment is subjected to the high acoustic load generated during lift-off [1]. Therefore, many extreme measures are 

taken to try to suppress this acoustic environment by damping with a water deluge system and diverting engine plumes 

away from the vehicle via flame trenches. Even single decibel 

reductions of the acoustic levels can translate into a sizable 

reduction of acoustic loadings, certification needs, operational costs, and even vehicle weight. Therefore, lowering the 

acoustic level via various mitigation schemes is an important 

aspect of a launch pad design. 

In 2011 and 2012, the NESC sponsored research into the 

effectiveness of a microphone phased array (MPA) to identify 

noise sources and tested the array during an Antares launch 

from the Wallops Flight Facility [2]. This simple prototype 

array was able to identify impingement-related noise sources 

during the launch. 

Today, building on this previous work, a new open-space truss 

MPA architecture is in development and test for use during the 

Artemis II launch. This truss structure consists of an aluminum 

tubular frame holding 70 microphones mounted in optimized 

positions over a dome-shaped surface (Figure 1). The center canister structure holds visible and infrared cameras as 

well as the amplifier electronics that transfer and relay microphone signals out to data cables that send information to the 

ground-mounted data acquisition system. The collected data 

are postprocessed using a functional-orthogonal beamforming 

routine that minimizes the effects of side lobes and reflections 

on the acoustic signal [3]. This produces a much cleaner image of primary noise impingement sources emanating from 

the vehicle and launch pad structures.

The NESC activity is performing verification and validation 

tests to determine the MPA’s environmental survivability and 

validate the beamforming capability. This is being done using 

a phased testing approach. Phase 1 testing performed at ARC 

elevated the MPA (Figure 2) and used horns and speakers of 

known intensity to ensure its ability to identify and separate 

noise sources (Figure 3).

In phase 2, the system was subjected to an actual engine 

noise environment during a static fire test at SSC. The MPA 

viewed the A-1 engine test stand during an RS-25 engine test 

from 460 feet, a similar distance from KSC Pad 39B to the 

lightning tower, where the MPA will be mounted for Artemis II 

(Figure 4). Results successfully identified and pinpointed the 

transient engine acoustic sources during the test (Figure 5).

The final test occurred during the NG-19 Antares launch from 

the Wallops Flight Facility in July 2023. The MPA tracked the 

plume and acoustic environment during the launch, showing 

transition from initial engine thrust to the overpressure environment flowing from the flame trench as the vehicle lifted off 

(Figure 6). The array was able to collect meaningful data while 

mounted outside, under acoustic conditions similar to those 

Figure 1. Overall view of the MPA, cable bundle, and data acquisition cabinet.

Figure 2. Setup for the outdoor test using a train horn and a long-range acoustic 

device (LRAD) speaker. The MPA was raised to test heights by a Telehandler.

Operators 

of Data 

Systems

Ethernet, 

Power,

Air

Electronic

Cabinet

Cable

Bundle

Array Dome on 

a Telehandler

Train Horn

LRAD

Speaker

expected during the Artemis II launch and also subjected 

to heat, humidity, salt air, and extreme weather.

Next, the MPA will be deployed at KSC for the Artemis II 

launch to measure the acoustic impingement and identify 

critical noise sources during that event. The data collected 

will help further refine and optimize the sound suppression 

systems for Artemis III and future launches.

References:

1. Eldred, K. M. & Jones, G. W., Jr., “Acoustic load generated by the propulsion system,” NASA SP-8072, 1971.

2. Panda, J., Mosher, R. N. & Porter, B. J., “Noise Source 

Identification During Rocket Engine Test Firings and a 

Rocket Launch,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 

Vol. 51, No. 4, July-Aug 2014. DOI: 10.2514/1.A32863

3. Dougherty, R.P., “Functional Beamforming for 

Aeroacoustic Source Distributions,” 20th AIAA/CEAS 

Aeroacoustics Conference, 10.2514/6.2014-3066, 2014.

For more information, contact: 

Dr. Jayanta Panda jayanta.panda-1@nasa.gov

Kenneth R. Hamm, Jr. kenneth.r.hamm@nasa.gov

Joel W. Sills joel.w.sills@nasa.gov
Operational modal analysis (OMA) techniques have been 

used to identify the modal characteristics of the Artemis I 

launch vehicle during the Dynamic Rollout Test (DRT) and Wet 

Dress Rehearsal (WDR) configuration prior to launch. Forces 

induced during rollout and on the launch pad are not directly 

measurable, thus necessitating a unique approach.

NASA is developing the SLS to support lunar and deep space 

exploration. SLS is integrated inside the Vehicle Assembly 

Building (VAB) on the mobile launcher (ML), which supports 

the integrated SLS launch vehicle during transport to the pad 

through lift-off. The ML also provides the fuel, power, and data 

umbilicals running to the SLS and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (MPCV), as well as crew access to the MPCV crew 

module. The ML weighs ~10.6 million pounds and is over 380 

feet tall. In the spring of 2022, the SLS was transported on 

the ML from the VAB to Launch Pad 39B (Figure 1) using the 

NASA crawler transporter (CT) to make this 4.2 mile trek, which 

takes ~8 hours. The CT alone weighs ~6.3 million pounds. 

Although the rollout environment produces relatively small 

launch vehicle structural loads in comparison to launch and 

ascent loads for most structures, the induced loads are fully 

representative of all loading across the entire vehicle, which is 

not feasible to replicate using localized shakers as was done 

in the Integrated Modal Test. As mentioned, forces induced 

during rollout and on the launch pad are not directly measurable, and OMA techniques were used to identify the modal 

characteristics of Artemis I in the DRT and WDR configurations. WDR, which typically includes vehicle fueling and other 

operations to demonstrate launch readiness, included several 

days of on-pad operations. Data collected for the WDR configuration, with partially filled core fuel tanks and without the CT 

under the ML, provided engineers another model configuration to check (Figure 2).

Acquisition and processing the data from over 300 accelerometers located on Artemis I, ML, and CT was accomplished by a 

cross-program team of engineers and technicians from across 

the Agency, including from SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, 

and the NESC. Using analytical techniques developed from 

previous rollout tests combined with new data-processing 

methodologies, the team processed data from preselected CT 

speed increments during rollout and on-pad during WDR. By 

making the necessary modifications to the integrated models 

to match both the DRT and WDR configurations, the team was 

able to use those results to help make sense of what was being seen in the test data. This proved to be required for OMA 

testing on this structure, given the type of complex excitation 

that was being observed.

A strategy for transferring spacecraft trajectories between 

flight mechanics tools, called Trajectory Reverse Engineering 

(TRE), has been developed[1]. This innovative technique has 

been designed to be generic, enabling its application between 

any pair of tools, and to be resilient to the differences found 

in the dynamical and numerical models unique to each tool. 

The TRE technique was developed as part of the NESC study, 

Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability and Component Sharing, to develop interfaces to support interoperability 

between several of NASA's institutional flight mechanics tools. 

The development of space missions involves multiple design 

tools, requiring the transfer of trajectories between them—a 

task that demands a large amount of trajectory data such as 

frames, states, state and time parametrizations, and dynamical 

and numerical models. This is a tedious and time-consuming 

task that is not always effective, particularly on complex 

dynamics where small variations in the models can cause 

trajectories to diverge in the reconstruction process. 

The TRE strategy is a trajectory-sharing process that is agnostic to the models used and performed through a common 

object: the spacecraft and planet kernels (SPK), developed 

at JPL Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility. The use 

of this common object aims to lay the groundwork for a global 

flight mechanics tool interoperability system (Figure 1). 

An SPK file serves as a container object, representing a trajectory as a 6D invariant structure in phase-space, agnostic 

to gravitational environments, fidelity models, or numerical 

representation of the system. A judicious kernel scan is used 

to recover the trajectory in any new tool, with the minimum (or 

no) information from the generating source. Impulsive maneuvers can be extracted in the form of velocity discontinuities, finite burns can be detected as variations on the energy 

of the system, and natural bodies conforming the trajectory 

universe can be directly read from the kernel. 

States or control points are found at predetermined time intervals or strategic points along the trajectory (e.g., periapsis, 

apoapsis, flybys closest approach), which are then used to 

reconstruct the trajectory timeline. The trajectory can be 

propagated forward in time using the selected set of control 

points. Due to the discrepancy between tool models, small 

or large discontinuities might appear between the integrated

legs, which can be smoothed by the implementation of a 

multiple-shooting algorithm (Figure 2). 

The TRE strategy was successfully implemented for Monte 

and Copernicus in the form of Python scripts (examples of 

reconstructed trajectories from SPK for each of these tools 

are shown in Figure 3). Through an optional user input file, 

a user can configure their specific problem. User-defined 

constraints are also possible, but their implementation would 

depend on the specific tool. The benefits of this effort include 

cost reduction through the sharing of capabilities, acceleration of the turnaround process involving various analysis tools 

at different stages of mission development, improved design 

solutions through multi-tool mission designs, and a reduction 

in development redundancy.

Reference:

1. Restrepo, R. L., “Trajectory Reverse Engineering: A General 

Strategy for Transferring Trajectories Between Flight 

Mechanics Tools” AAS 23-312, January 2023.

Operational Modal Analysis of the Trajectory Reverse Engineering

Artemis I Dynamic Rollout Test

Figure 1. A) Interoperability between flight mechanics tools using standardized 

trajectory structures. B) Traditional specific tool-to-tool interface design.

A B

Copernicus

Tool X

SPK Monte GMAT

Copernicus

Tool X

Monte GMAT

64 Innovative Techniques Innovative Techniques 65

Figure 3. Future and flown missions reconstructions using Copernicus 

(Europa Clipper, Cassini) and Monte (HLS, Voyager 2) from SPK obtained 

from the Horizons System database at https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/.

For information, contact Dexter Johnson dexter.johnson@nasa.gov and Teresa Kinney teresa.l.kinney@nasa.gov. For information, contact Heather Koehler heather.koehler@nasa.gov and Ricardo L. Restrepo ricardo.l.restrepo@jpl.nasa.gov.

Voyager 2 Cassini Grand Finale

HLS

Figure 1. Artemis I Rollout to Launch Pad 39B.

Figure 2. Artemis I at Launch Pad 39B.

Figure 2. Multiple-shooting algorithm, utilizing strategic 

control points and a forward-backward propagation scheme.

Europa Clipper
Michael Aguilar

NASA Technical Fellow

for Software (2005-19)

Frank H. Bauer

NESC Discipline Expert

for GNC (2003-04)

Michael Blythe

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2008-19)

Dr. Thomas M. Brown

NASA Technical Fellow

for Propulsion (2014-18)

Dr. Charles J. Camarda

NESC Deputy Director for 

Advanced Projects (2006-09)

Kenneth D. Cameron

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2005-08)

Steven F. Cash

MSFC NCE (2005)

Derrick J. Cheston

GRC NCE (2003-07)

J. Larry Crawford

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2003-04)

Dr. Nancy Currie-Gregg

NESC PE (2011-17)

Mitchell L. Davis

NASA Technical Fellow

for Avionics (2007-09)

Cornelius J. Dennehy

NASA Technical Fellow

for GNC (2005-23)

Dennis B. Dillman

NASA HQ NCE (2005-08)

Dr. Daniel J. Dorney

NASA Technical Fellow

for Propulsion (2018-22)

Freddie Douglas, III

SSC NCE (2007-08) 

Patricia L. Dunnington

MTSO Mgr. (2006-08)

Dawn C. Emerson

GRC NCE (2011-14)

Walter C. Engelund

LaRC NCE (2009-13)

Patrick G. Forrester

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2009-16)

Wayne R. Frazier

Senior SMA Integration 

Manager (2005-12)

Dr. Michael S. Freeman

ARC NCE (2003-04)

T. Randy Galloway

SSC NCE (2003-04)

Roberto Garcia

NASA Technical Fellow

for Propulsion (2007-13)

Dr. Edward R. Generazio

NESC Discipline Expert

for NDE (2003-05)

Dr. Michael G. Gilbert

NESC PE (2008-21)

Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-05)

Oscar Gonzalez

NASA Technical Fellow

for Avionics (2010-18) 

Michael Hagopian

GSFC NCE (2003-07)

David A. Hamilton

JSC NCE (2003-07) 

Dr. Charles E. Harris

NESC PE (2003-06)

Dr. Steven A. Hawley

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2003-04)

Marc S. Hollander

MTSO Mgr. (2005-06)

Michael G. Hess

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2021-22)

George D. Hopson

NASA Technical Fellow

for Propulsion (2003-07) 

Keith L. Hudkins

NASA HQ OCE Rep.

(2003-07)

Kauser S. Imtiaz

NASA Technical Fellow

for Structures (2017-23)

George L. Jackson

GSFC NCE (2015-18) 

Danny D. Johnston

MSFC NCE (2003-04)

Michael W. Kehoe

DFRC NCE (2003-05)

Dr. Justin H. Kerr

JSC NCE (2021-22)

R. Lloyd Keith

JPL NCE (2007-16)

Denney J. Keys

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Electrical Power (2009-12)

Dr. Dean A. Kontinos

ARC NCE (2006-07)

Julie A. Kramer-White

NESC Discipline Expert 

for Mechanical Analysis 

(2003-06) 

Nans Kunz

ARC NCE (2009-15)

Steven G. Labbe

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Flight Sciences (2003-06) 

Matthew R. Landano

JPL NCE (2003-04)

Dr. Curtis E. Larsen

NASA Technical Fellow

for Loads & Dynamics 

(2005-17) 

Dr. David S. Leckrone

NESC Chief Scientist 

(2003-06) 

Richard T. Manella

GRC NCE (2009-10) 

John P. McManamen

NASA Technical Fellow

for Mechanical Systems

(2003-07) 

Brian K. Muirhead

JPL NCE (2005-07) 

Dr. Paul M. Munafo

NESC Deputy Director (2003-04) 

Daniel G. Murri

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Flight Mechanics (2008-22)

Stan C. Newberry

MTSO Manager (2003-04)

Dr. Tina L. Panontin

ARC NCE (2008-09)

Fernando A. Pellerano

GSFC NCE (2018-21)

Joseph W. Pellicciotti

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Mechanical Systems (2008-13) 

and GSFC NCE (2013-15)

Dr. Robert S. Piascik

NASA Technical Fellow

for Materials (2003-16)

Jill L. Prince

NIO Manager (2013-22)

Dr. Shamim A. Rahman

SSC NCE (2005-06) 

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju

NASA Technical Fellow

for Structures (2003-17)

Paul W. Roberts

LaRC NCE (2016-19)

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NESC Director (2003-14)

Jerry L. Ross

NESC Chief Astronaut

(2004-06)

Henry A. Rotter, Jr.

NASA Technical Fellow

for ECLS (2004-19) 

Richard W. Russell

NASA Technical Fellow

for Materials (2016-22)

Dr. Charles F. Schafer

MSFC NCE (2006-10)

Dawn M. Schaible

Manager, Systems 

Engineering Office 

(2003-14)

Dr. David M. Schuster

NASA Technical Fellow

for Aerosciences (2007-23)

Bryan K. Smith

GRC NCE (2008-10)

Dr. James F. Stewart

AFRC NCE (2005-14)

Daniel J. Tenney

MTSO Manager (2009-13)

Scott D. Tingle

NESC Chief Astronaut

(2020-22)

John E. Tinsley

NASA HQ SMA Manager

for NESC (2003-04) 

Timothy G. Trenkle

GSFC NCE (2009-13)

Clayton P. Turner

LaRC NCE (2008-09)

T. Scott West

JSC NCE (2012-20)

Barry E. Wilmore

NESC Chief Astronaut

(2005-20)

Dr. Daniel Winterhalter

NESC Chief Scientist

(2005-20)

66 NESC Leadership NESC Alumni 67

NESC Leadership Bios available at: NASA.GOV/NESC NESC Alumni

Dr. Dexter

Johnson

Loads &

Dynamics

Dr. Cynthia H. 

Null

Human

Factors

Dr. Robert F.

Hodson

Avionics

Dr. Joseph

Olejniczak

Aerosciences

Heather M. 

Koehler

Flight

Mechanics

Dr. Morgan B.

Abney

ECLS

Dr. Christopher

N. D’Souza

GNC

Dr. Christopher 

J. Iannello

Electrical

Power

Dr. Bryan W.

McEnerney

Materials

Jon B.

Holladay

Systems

Engineering

Steven L.

Rickman

Thermal Control

& Protection

Deneen M.

Taylor

Structures

Dr. Lorraine 

E. Prokop

Software

Dr. Joseph I.

Minow

Space

Environments

Dr. Michael J.

Dube

Mechanical

Systems

Dr. Jonathan

E. Jones

Propulsion

Dr. Upendra

N. Singh

Sensors &

Instrumentation

Dr. William H.

Prosser

Nondestructive

Evaluation

Michael L.

Meyer

Cryogenics

NASA Technical Fellows

Robert S.

Jankovsky

GRC

Kenneth R.

Hamm, Jr.

ARC

Stephen A. 

Minute

KSC

Dr. W. Lance 

Richards

AFRC

Kimberly A.

Simpson

JPL

Carmel A.

Conaty

GSFC

Joel W.

Sills

JSC

NESC Chief Engineers

Michael D.

Smiles

SSC

K. Elliott

Cramer

LaRC

Steven J.

Gentz

MSFC

Office of the Director

Mark T. 

Vande Hei

NESC Chief

Astronaut

Mary Elizabeth

Wusk

NIO

Manager

Lisa A.

McAlhaney

MTSO

Manager

Michael T.

Kirsch

NESC Deputy

Director

Peter

Panetta

NESC Technical 

Leader for Safety

Timmy R.

Wilson

NESC

Director

Clinton H. 

Cragg

Donald S. 

Parker

Jon P. 

Haas

Michael D. 

Squire

NESC Principal Engineers

Dr. Jonathan A. R. Rall, Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS)

David Francisco, Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO)

Glen W. Lockwood, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA)

Liaisons

Dr. Henning Leidecker, a failure analysis expert with the Goddard 

Space Flight Center, passed away peacefully on October 30, 

2023, surrounded by family and loved ones. Dr. Leidecker 

served on countless projects and anomaly investigations over 

his extraordinary 39-year NASA career. 

He passionately applied his vast wealth 

of knowledge to solve NASA’s most 

challenging problems, including on Shuttle, 

ISS, Commercial Crew, Hubble and Webb 

telescopes, and more. Our colleague, 

friend, and mentor will be greatly missed.

In Memory of Dr. Henning Leidecker
NESC Director’s Award

Honors individuals for defending a technical position that conflicts 

with a program or organization’s initial or prevailing engineering 

perspectives and for taking personal initiative to foster clear and open 

communication and resolve controversial issues.

DANIEL L. DIETRICH - In recognition of the development 

and advocacy of the technical rationale to assess the safety 

and effectiveness of breathing systems for pilots of tactical 

aircraft.

NESC Leadership Award

Honors individuals for sustained leadership excellence demonstrated 

by establishing a vision, developing and managing a plan, and 

building consensus to proactively resolve conflicts and achieve results.

YUAN CHEN - In recognition of outstanding leadership in 

the electrical, electronic, electromechanical parts’ community 

and the development of recommendations on the use of 

commercial parts in NASA missions.

NIKOLAUS GRAVENSTEIN - In recognition of outstanding 

technical leadership in support of Verification of Testing 

Standard for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Partial Pressure in 

Extravehicular Activity Suits.

ELSPETH M. PETERSEN - In recognition of outstanding 

leadership to the Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator 

Assessment Team in negotiating creative solutions and 

facility challenges.

PATRICK A. SIMPKINS - In recognition of outstanding 

technical leadership in support of numerous NESC 

assessments to reduce risk to NASA’s most critical human 

and robotic spaceflight programs.

NESC Engineering Excellence Award

Honors individuals for making significant engineering contributions, 

developing innovative approaches, and ensuring appropriate levels of 

engineering rigor are applied to the resolution of technical issues in 

support of the NESC mission.

KEVIN W. DICKENS - In recognition of engineering 

excellence and sustained commitment to the NESC 

Propulsion Technical Discipline Team and NASA missions.

DAVID S. HAFERMALZ - In recognition of engineering 

excellence and technical insight in the Orion digital 

acquisition unit testing in support of the Thermocouple 

Interference During High-speed Entry Assessment.

CHRISTOPHER O. JOHNSTON - In recognition of engineering excellence for developing the electromagnetic mechanism 

for the anomalous temperature behavior during the Thermocouple Interference During High-speed Entry Assessment.

JING LI - In recognition of engineering excellence in support 

of the Verification of Testing Standard for Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) Partial Pressure in Extravehicular Activity Suits.

RAY P. PITTS - In recognition of engineering excellence in 

evaluating material defects in spacesuit water membrane 

evaporator modules and ensuring engineering rigor during 

failure mitigation testing.

JASON A. VAUGHN - In recognition of engineering 

excellence in Kevlar lanyard testing in support of the Lucy 

Project Solar Array Anomaly Team.

JAMES L. WALKER - In recognition of engineering 

excellence in the development of new statistical 

methodologies for nondestructive evaluation of fracture 

critical flight hardware and the incorporation into NASA 

standards.

NESC Group Achievement Award

Honors a team of employees comprising government and nongovernment personnel. The award is in recognition of outstanding 

accomplishment through the coordination of individual efforts that 

have contributed substantially to the success of the NESC mission.

COMMERCIAL ECLSS DESIGN DEEP-DIVE 

ASSESSMENT TEAM - In recognition of significant 

contributions to the safety of life support, emergency, 

active thermal, and crew systems in preparation of Boeing 

CST-100’s first crewed flight.

FILTRATION OF SPACEFLIGHT PROPULSION AND 

PRESSURANT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT TEAM - In 

recognition of outstanding dedication and engineering 

excellence in the development of a unified guide to 

spaceflight propulsion filtration. 

COMMERCIAL CREW PROGRAM ASCENT STABILITY 

ASSESSMENT TEAM - In recognition of outstanding 

technical achievement in establishing rigorous best practices 

for justifying deviations from Commercial Crew Program 

control system stability robustness margin guidelines. 

NASA COTS GUIDANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM - For 

outstanding technical contributions to advance EEE parts 

engineering through the development of practices for the use 

of COTS parts in NASA missions. 

THRUSTER ADVANCEMENT FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE 

OPERATION IN SPACE (TALOS) PROJECT - In recognition 

of outstanding technical achievement in the evaluation of 

the TALOS Project’s LabVIEW code used for ground tests of 

hypergolic thrusters.

Left to right: (Front Row) Tim Wilson (LaRC); Yuan Chen (LaRC), Elspeth Peterson (KSC), Grace Belancik (ARC), Jing Pei (LaRC), Mark Vande Hei 

(NESC Chief Astronaut); (Second row) James Walker (MSFC), Carlton Faller (JSC), Jason Vaughn (MSFC), Shane Cravens (Syncom Space Services, 

SSC), Shawn Brechbill (MSFC), Kevin Dickens (GRC); (Third row) Christopher Johnston (LaRC)

NESC HONOR AWARDS

NESC Honor Awards are given each year to NASA 

employees, industry representatives, and other stakeholders 

for their efforts and achievements in engineering, leadership, 

teamwork, and communication. These awards formally 

recognize those who have made outstanding contributions to 

the NESC mission, demonstrate engineering and technical 

excellence, and foster an open environment.

68 NESC Honor Awards NESC Honor Awards 69
70 Publications - Based on NESC Assessments Publications - Based on NESC Assessments 71

SPACE ENVIRONMENTS

1. Barrie, J.; Gouzman, I.; Hoffman, R.; Tighe, A.; Tagawa, M.; Miller, 

S.K.R.; de Groh, K.K.; Minow, J.I.; and Lao, Y.Y.: In-Situ Sensors for 

Monitoring the Space Environment and Its Effect Upon Satellite Materials [White paper]. Space Materials Workshop, July 24-28, 2023, virtual.

2. Davis, V.A.; and Mandell, M.J.: NASCAP Surface Charging 

Tool Development, Nascap-2k Additional Examples. NASA CR20230010099, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, July 2023.

3. Dawkins, E.C.M.; Stober, G.; Janches, D.; Carrillo-Sánchez, J.D.; 

Lieberman, R.S.; Jacobi, C.; Moffat-Griffin, T.; Mitchell, N.J.; Cobbett, 

N.; Batista, P.P.; Andrioli, V.F.; Buriti, R.A.; Murphy, D.J.; Kero, J.; 

Gulbrandsen, N.; Tsutsumi, M.; Kozlovsky, A.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, C.; 

and Lester, M.: Solar Cycle and Long-term Trends in the Observed 

Peak of the Meteor Altitude Distributions by Meteor Radars. 

Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2022GL101953. https://doi. 

org/10.1029/2022GL101953, 2023.

4. Debchoudhury, S.; Lin, D.; Coffey, V.N.; Barjatya, A.; Minow, J.I.; and 

Parker, L.N.: Plasma Irregularities Observed by ISS FPMU: Multiinstrument Case-study and Modeling Results. Abstract SA52A-24, 

AGU Fall Meeting 2022, December 12-16, 2022, Chicago, IL.

5. Debchoudhury, S.; Karan, D.; Barjatya, A.; Coffey, V.N.; and Minow, 

J.I.: Multi-layer Observations of Plasma Blobs and Bubbles using 

ICON, GOLD, and ISS FPMU. 2023 Coupling, Energetics, and 

Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Workshop, June 25-30, 

2023, San Diego, CA.

6. de Groh, K.; Stanton, J.S.; Minow, J.I.; Kimoto, Y.; Lord, E.M.; and 

Lao, Y.Y.: Space Materials Center [White paper]. Space Materials 

Workshop, July 24-28, 2023, virtual.

7. Janches, D.; Bruzonne, J.S.; Weryk, R.J.; Hormaechea, J.L.; and 

Brunini, C.: Radar Observations of the Arid Meteor Shower Outburst 

from Comet 15P/Finlay. Planetary Science Journal, 4, 165, 2023, 

https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ace82a.

8. Levine, J.S.: The Impact of Lunar Dust and Mars Dust on Human 

Exploration: Summary of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

(NESC) Workshop. Lunar Science Innovation Consortium Dust 

Mitigation Focus Group Meeting, January 19, 2023, virtual.

9. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.; Zheng, Y.; Buhler, J.; Willis, E.M.; Petrenko, 

M.; Phoenix, D.; Jun, I.; and Minow, J.I.: NAIRAS Model Updates and 

Improvements to the Prediction of the Ionizing Radiation Environment 

from the Earth’s Surface to Geospace. Abstract SM35C-1769, AGU 

Fall Meeting 2022, December 12-16, 2022, Chicago, IL.

10. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.; Phoenix, D.; Paul, S.N.; Mehta, P.M.; 

Zheng, Y.; and Nunez, M.: NAIRAS Model Nowcasting and 

Forecasting of the Aviation Radiation Environment. 20th Conference 

on Space Weather, American Meteorological Society, 103rd Annual 

Meeting, January 8-12, 2023, Denver, CO.

11. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.; Zheng, Y.; Buhler, J.; Willis, E.M.; Petrenko, 

M.; Phoenix, D.; Jun, I.; and Minow, J.: NAIRAS Model Updates and 

Improvements to the Prediction of Ionizing Radiation from Earth’s 

Surface to Cislunar Environment. NOAA Space Weather Workshop, 

April 17-21, 2023, Boulder, CO.

12. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.P.; Phoenix, D.; Zheng, Y.; Petrenko, 

M.; Buhler, J.; Jun, I.; Minow, J.I.; and Willis E.: NAIRAS Ionizing 

Radiation Model: Extension from Atmosphere to Space. NASA/TP20230006306, May 2023.

13. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.; Zheng, Y.; Buhler, J.; Willis, E.M.; Petrenko, 

M.; Phoenix, D.; Jun, I.; and Minow, J.I.: NAIRAS Atmospheric and 

Space Radiation Environment Model. IEEE Nuclear and Space 

Radiation Effects Conference, July 24-28, 2023, Kansas City, MO.

14. Mertens, C.J.; Gronoff, G.P.; Zheng, Y.; Petrenko, M.; Buhler, J.; 

Phoenix, D.; Willis, E.; Jun, I.; and Minow, J.: NAIRAS model run- onrequest service at CCMC. Space Weather, 21, e2023SW003473. 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003473, 2023.

15. Minow, J.I.; Meloy, R.; Parker, L.N.; and Collado-Vega, Y.: JWST Space 

Environments Launch Constraints. Fall 2022 Natural Environments Dayof-Launch Working Group, December 7, 2022, virtual.

16. Minow, J.I.: Impacts of the Space Environment on Lunar Exploration. 

AIAA-2023-2467, AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, January 23-27, 

2023, National Harbor, MD (invited).

17. Minow, J.I.: Spacecraft Anomalies and Failures Workshop 2023: NASA 

Introductory Comments. Spacecraft Anomalies and Failures 2023 

Workshop, March 29, 2023, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 

MD, and March 30, 2023, NRO HQ Westfields (invited).

18. Minow, J.I.: SCAF Workshop 2023: Day 1 Final Comments and Wrapup. Spacecraft Anomalies and Failures 2023 Workshop, March 29, 

2023, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD and March 30, 

2023, NRO HQ Westfields (invited).

19. Minow, J.I.: Low Energy Ionizing Radiation and Plasma Contributions 

to Radiation Dose in Materials at Sun-Earth Lagrange Points. 2023 

Materials Research Society Spring Meeting and Exhibit, Symposium 

SF02: Materials in Space—Design and Testing, April 10-14, 2023, San 

Francisco, CA (invited).

20. Minow, J.I.; Debchoudhury, S.; Barjatya, A.; Coffey, V.; and Parker, 

L.N.: Floating Potential Measurement Unit (FPMU) Data Processing 

Algorithm and Analysis Assessment. NASA/TM-20230013386, NESCRP-19-01434, September 2023.

21. Minow, J.I.: Surface Charging to High Voltages in the Space 

Environment. High Voltage Aerospace Systems Workshop, Energy & 

Mobility Technology, Systems, and Value Chain Conference and Expo, 

September 12-15, 2023, Cleveland, OH (invited).

22. Minow, J.I.; Diekmann, A.M.; Willis, E.M.; and Coffey, V.N.: L2-

Charged Particle Environment (L2-CPE) Low Energy Radiation 

Fluence Model. Radiation and its Effects on Components and Systems 

Conference (RADECS) 2023, September 25-29, 2023, Toulouse, 

France.

23. Newheart, A.M.; Sazykin, S.; Coffey, V.N.; Chandler, M.O.; Coster, A. J.; 

Fejer, B.G.; Minow, J.I.; and Swenson, C.M.: Observations of Night-Time 

Equatorial Ionosphere Structure with the FPMU on board the International Space Station. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 

127, e2022JA030373. https://doi. org/10.1029/2022JA030373 2022.

24. Parker, L.N.; Jun, I.; and Minow, J.I.: Introduction to the Virtual 

Collection on the Applied Space Environments Conference 2021. 

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 374-374, doi/ 

abs/10.2514/1.A35728, 2023.

25. Schonberg, W. and Squire, M: Predicting High-speed Particle Impact 

Damage in Spacecraft Thermal Protection Systems. Journal of Space 

Safety Engineering. Accepted for publication.

26. Schonberg, W. and Squire, M.: Toward a More Generalized Ballistic 

Limit Equation for Multi-Shock Shield. Acta Astronautica. Accepted for 

publication.

27. Stober, G.; Weryk, R.; Janches, D.; Dawkins, E.C.M.; Günzkofer, 

F.; Hormaechea, J.L.; and Pokhotelov, D.: Polarization Dependency 

of Transverse Scattering and Collisional Coupling to the Ambient 

Atmosphere from Meteor Trails - Theory and Observations. 

Planetary and Space Science, 105768, ISSN 0032-0633, https://doi. 

org/10.1016/j.pss.2023.105768, 2023.

28. Thomsen, D.L.; Jordan, T.M.; Milic, L.; and Girard, W.: Decreasing 

Proton Single Event Effects in CubeSats with Shielding. 2023 

Single Event Effects (SEE) Symposium and Military and Aerospace 

Programmable Logic Devices (MAPLD) Workshop, May 15-19, 2023, 

La Jolla, CA.

29. Valinia, A.; and Minow, J.: Required Space Weather Reconnaissance 

in the Artemis Era. 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 

March 13-17, 2023, The Woodlands, TX.

30. Zheng, Y.; Jun, I.; Tu, W.; Sprits, Y.; Kim, W.; Miyoshi, Y.; Meier, 

M.; and Minow, J.: Overview, Progress and Next Steps for Our 

Understanding of the Near-Earth Space Radiation and Plasma 

Environment: Science and Applications. 28th International Union of 

Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) General Assembly, July 8-18, 2023, 

Berlin, Germany.

STRUCTURES

1. Arndt, C. and TerMaath, S.: Characterization of the Damage Tolerance 

of Composite Overlays through Subspace Evaluation. ASCE Engineering Mechanics Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, June 6-9, 2023.

2. Babuska, P.; Tai, W.; Goyal, V.; and Rodriguez, A.: Novel Test and Analysis Methodology for the Assessment of Joint under Re-entry Environment. AIAA Scitech 2023, National Harbor, MD, January 23-27, 2023.

3. Bo, D.; Hwangbo, H.; Sharma, V.; Arndt, C.; and TerMaath, S.: A 

Randomized Subspace-based Approach for Dimensionality Reduction 

and Important Variable Selection. Journal of Machine Learning 

Research, 24: 1-3010.48550/arxiv.2106.01584, 2023.

4. Bo, D.; Hwangbo, H.; and TerMaath, S.: Subspace Selection for HighDimensional Experiments of Material Development Process. Institute 

of Industrial & Systems Engineers (IISE) Annual Conference and 

Expo, New Orleans, LA, May 20-23, 2023.

1. NASA/TP-20220015152 Optimization Approach for Wind Tunnel Fan 

Blade Strain Gage Correlation with Test Fixture Unknowns.

2. NASA/TM-20220015363 Technology Maturation Report for Damage Arresting Composites under the Environmentally Responsible 

Aviation Project.

3. NASA/TM-20220017053 Unique Science from the Moon in the 

Artemis Era

4. NASA/TM-20220018183 Recommendations on Use of CommercialOff-The-Shelf (COTS) Guidance for all Mission Risk Classifications 

- Phase II

5. NASA/CR-20230002635 Assessment of Coated Particle Fuels for 

Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion Systems; A Report for the 

NESC Nuclear Power & Propulsion Technical Discipline Team

6. NASA/TM-20230004147 Ceramic Capacitor Grain Size Analysis 

Using Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD)

7. NASA/TM-20230004154 Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Crew 

Module (CM) Side Hatch Dynamic Analysis

8. NASA/TP-20230005922 Best Practices for the Design, Development,

and Operation of Robust and Reliable Space Vehicle Guidance, 

Navigation, and Control Systems

9. NASA/TM-20230006220 Metallurgical Factors that Govern ST 

Properties in Commercial 2219-T87 Thick Plate

10. NASA/TP-20230006226 Evaluation of Through-thickness 

Microtextural Characteristics in 2219-T87 Thick Plate

11. NASA/TM-20230006507 Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools 

Interoperability and Component Sharing

12. NASA/TM-20230006648 Verification of Testing Standard for Carbon 

Dioxide (CO2) Partial Pressure in Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Suits

13. NASA/TM-20230007658 ISS Universal Waste Management System 

(UWMS) Optical Sensor: Phase 1-Feasibility

14. NASA/CR-20230010099 NASCAP Surface Charging Tool 

Development; Nascap-2k Additional Examples

15. NASA/TM-20230010624 Self Reacting-Friction Stir Weld (SR-FSW) 

Anomalies

16. NASA/TM-20230010640 Space-Shielding Radiation Dosage Code 

Evaluation; Phase 1: SHIELDOSE-2 Radiation-Assessment Code

17. NASA/TM-20230010680 Shock Prediction Advancement: Transient 

Finite Energy (TFE) Shock Predictor

18. NASA/TM-20230011306 NASA Exploration Systems Maintainability 

Standards for Artemis and Beyond

19. NASA/CR-20230012105 A Compilation of Composite Overwrapped 

Pressure Vessel Research (2015–2021)

20. NASA/TP-20230012154 Software Error Incident Categorizations in 

Aerospace

21. NASA/TM-20230013348 Unconservatism of Linear-Elastic Fracture 

Mechanics (LEFM)Analysis Post Autofrettage

22. NASA/TM-20230013386 Floating Potential Measurement Unit 

(FPMU) Data Processing Algorithm Development and Analysis 

Assessment

AVIONICS

1. Chen, Y.: Statistical Interpretation of Life Test - Comparison between 

MIL and JEDEC requirements. NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging 

Program’s Electronic Technology Workshop, June 12-15, 2023.

2. Franconi, N., Cook, T., Wilson, C., and George, A.: Comparison of 

Multi-Phase Power Converters and Power Delivery Networks for NextGeneration Space Architectures. 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 

Big Sky, MT. pp. 1-15, DOI: 10.1109/AERO55745.2023.10115579.

3. Green, C.; Haghani, N.; Hernandez-Pellerano, A.; Gheen, B.; Lanham, 

A.; Fraction, J.: MUSTANG: A Workhorse for NASA Spaceflight 

Avionics. IEEE Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology 

- IEEE Space Computing Conference Caltech (SMC-IT/SCC), 

Pasadena, CA.

4. Hodson, R., Chen, Y., and Douglas, S.: NESC Recommendations 

on Use of COTS Parts for NASA Missions (Phase II) & The ILPM 

Pathfinder. NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging Program’s 

Electronic Technology Workshop, June 12-15, 2023.

5. Hodson, R., Chen, Y., and Douglas, S.: Recommendations on Use of 

COTS Parts for NASA Missions. 2023 Space Computing Conference 

(SCC) Closed Session, El Segundo, CA, July 21, 2023.

6. Powell, W.: SpaceVPX Interoperability Study Briefing. SOSA 

Architecture Meeting, November 1, 2022.

7. Powell, W. and Hodson, R.: Advancing SpaceVPX Interoperability – 

Embedded Tech Trends, Chandler, AZ, January 23, 2023.

8. Powell, W.: NASA’s Vision for Spaceflight Avionics. 2023 Space 

Computing Conference (SCC) Closed Session, El Segundo, CA, July 

21, 2023.

9. Rutishauser, D.; Prothro, J.; and Fail, J.: A System to Provide 

Deterministic Flight Software Operation and Maximize Multicore 

Processing Performance: The Safe and Precise Landing – Integrated 

Capabilities Evolution (SPLICE) Datapath. IEEE Space Mission 

Challenges for Information Technology - IEEE Space Computing 

Conference, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, July 18-21, 2023.

10. Some, R.; Collier, P.; Hodson, R.; and Powell W.: SpaceVPX 

Interoperability. IEEE Space Computing Conference, Caltech, 

Pasadena, CA, USA - 18-21 July 2023.

FLIGHT MECHANICS

1. Restrepo, R. L.: Trajectory Reverse Engineering: A General Strategy 

for Transferring Trajectories Between Flight Mechanics Tools, AAS 

23-312. 33rd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Austin, TX, 

January 15-19, 2023.

LOADS AND DYNAMICS

1. Allgood, J. and Decker, A.: Space Launch System Day of Launch 

Loads for Artemis I. Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle (SCLV) Dynamic 

Environments Workshop, El Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

2. Bell, J.; Armand, S.; and Samareh, J.: Structural Evaluation and 

Optimization of Aeroshell Design Properties for Launch and Reentry 

Load Cases for Future AI-Informed Design Leveraging Large Datasets. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, El 

Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

3. Blelloch, P.: Efficient Calculation of Random Stress Results. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, El 

Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

4. Gardner, B.; Parrinello, A.; and Musser, C.: An Isogrid Panel Model 

for SEA. Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments 

Workshop, El Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

5. Griggs, L.; Allgood, J.; Swatzell, S.; Moseley, J.; Oliver, N.; and 

Decker, A.: Space Launch System Artemis 1 Ascent Loads 

Reconstruction. Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle (SCLV) Dynamic 

Environments Workshop, El Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

6. Hahn, S.; Lunetta, N.; Weathers, J.; Zuo, K.; and Decker, A.: 

Space Launch System Artemis 1 Rollout Loads Monitoring and 

Reconstruction. Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle (SCLV) Dynamic 

Environments Workshop, El Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

7. Kennedy, M. and Blough, J.: Shocksat Testing and Analysis Results. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, El 

Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

8. Kolaini, A.; Kinney, T.; and Johnson, D.: Guidance on Shock 

Qualification and Acceptance Test Requirements. Spacecraft and 

Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, El Segundo, CA, 

June 27-29, 2023.

9. Patel, H. and Parsons, D.: Pressure Transducer Shock Testing. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, El 

Segundo, CA, June 27-29, 2023.

SOFTWARE

1. Prokop, L.: A Study of Historical Flight Software Error Incidents to 

Influence Fault-Tolerant Design. 2023 Flight Software Workshop, 

March 20-23, 2023, Pasadena, CA. 

NASA Technical Memorandums (TM), 

NASA Technical Publications (TP), and 

NASA Contractor Reports (CR)

Technical Papers, Conference Proceedings, 

and Technical Presentations
72 Publications - Based on NESC Assessments

5. Brust, F. W.; Punch, E.; Twombly, E.; and Wallace, J: Estimation 

Scheme for Weld Residual Stress Effect on Crack Opening 

Displacements. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, 

Paper PVP2023-107396, Atlanta, GA, July 2023.

6. Cardona, A.; Jegley, D.; and Lovejoy, A.: Manufacturing Trials of 

Integrally Stiffened Panels for Flight Applications. AIAA-2023-0781, 

SciTech 2023, National Harbor, MD, January 2023.

7. Cline, J.; Dorsey, J.; Kang, D.; Doggett, W.; and Allen, D.: Ideas For 

Infusing In-Space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing Concepts 

into Nuclear Electric Propulsion Architectures. Joint Army-Navy-NASAAir Force (JANNAF) 12th Spacecraft Propulsion Joint Subcommittee 

Meeting, Huntsville, AL, December 2022.

8. Doggett, W.; Heppler, J.; Mahlin, M.; Pappa, R.; Teter, J.; Song, 

K.; White, B.; Wong, I.; and Mikulas, M.: Towers: Critical Initial 

Infrastructure for the Moon. AIAA-2023-0383, SciTech 2023, National 

Harbor, MD, January 2023.

9. Fleishel, R.; Ferrell, W.; and TerMaath, S.: Fatigue-Damage Initiation 

at Process Introduced Internal Defects in Electron-Beam-Melted Ti6Al-4V. 2023. Metals 13:2, 350. Special Issue: Deformation, Fracture 

and Microstructure of Metallic Materials, https://doi.org/10.3390/ 

met13020350.

10. Fleishel, R. and TerMaath, S.: Modeling fatigue overload behavior in 

microstructurally short cracks: connecting initiation and long crack 

behavior. ASCE Engineering Mechanics Institute, Georgia Tech, 

Atlanta, GA, June 6-9, 2023.

11. Goyal, V.; Tuck-Lee, J.; Babuska, P.; and Zeitunian, E.: Lessons 

Learned in the Buckling Assessments of Space Structures. AIAA 

Scitech 2023, National Harbor, MD, January 23-27, 2023.

12. Goyal, V.; Sagrillo, C.; Fannon, J.; Forth, S.; and Kezirian, M.: Space 

Systems Technical Guide for Composite Overwrapped Pressure 

Vessels. AIAA Scitech 2023, National Harbor, MD, January 23-27, 2023.

13. Hart, D.; Balsara, Martinez, and TerMaath, S.: Multi-Scale MultiPhysics Bondline Strength Prediction Research. NATO Science & 

Technology Organization, Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT-361) 

Research Workshop on Certification of Bonded Repair on Composite 

Aircraft Structures, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct 18-20, 2022.

14. Kaleel, I., Ricks, T.M., Gustafson, P.A., Pineda, E.J., Bednarcyk, B.A., 

and Arnold, S.M. (2023) “Massively Multiscale Modeling using NASA 

Multiscale Analysis Tool through Partitioned Task-Parallel Approach” 

2023 AIAA SciTech Forum, 23-27 January 2023, National Harbor, MD.

15. Lin, L.: Correlation Study of SWOT Payload Acoustic Prediction and 

Test. AIAA SciTech, January 2023.

16. Ma, X. and TerMaath, S.: Microstructural Analysis of Intergranular 

Stress Corrosion Cracking in 5xxx Series Aluminum Reinforced with 

a Composite Patch. 2023. Advances in the Analysis and Design of 

Marine Structures. Ringsberg & Guedes Soares (Eds), CRC Press. 

ISBN 978-1-032-50636-4.

17. Pak, C.: Linear and Geometrically Nonlinear Structural Shape Sensing 

from Strain Data. AIAA Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2023, pp. 907-922.

18. Pak, C.: Finite Element Model Tuning Using Analytical Sensitivity 

Values. Journal of Aircraft, Articles in Advance (Vol. 60, No. 2 or 3), 

2023.

19. Panda, J.; Nguyen, M.P.; Keil. D.R.; and Hamm, K.R.: A Microphone 

Phased Array for Launch Acoustics Application. AIAA SciTech 

Conference, National Harbor, MD, (2023), AIAA Paper 2023-0790.

20. Qu, X.; Shimizu, L.; Rome J.; Nordendale, N.; and Goyal, V.: 

Reliability- based Damage Tolerance Analysis for Additive 

Manufacturing Part. NAFEMS World Congress 2023, Tampa, FL, May 

2023.

21. Ricks, T. M.; Pineda, E. J.; Bednarcyk, B. A.; McCorkle, L. S.; Miller, 

S. G.; Murthy, P. L.; and Segal, K. N.: Multiscale Progressive Failure 

Analysis of 3D Woven Composites. 2022, Polymers, 14(20), 4340.

22. Rome, J. and Goyal, V.: Moving Towards a Print Then Use Framework 

for Additive Manufacturing. ASME SSDM 2023, June 2023, 

SSDM2023-111806, Accepted.

23. Rudd, M.T.; Eberlein, D.J.; Waters, W.A.; Gardner, N.W.; Schultz, 

M.R.; and Bisagni, C.: Analysis and Validation of a Scaled, LaunchVehicle-Like Composite Cylinder under Axial Compression. Composite 

Structures, Volume 304, Part 1, January 2023.

24. Rudd, M.T.; Schultz, M.R.; Gardner, N.W.; and Bisagni, C.: Test and 

Analysis of a Composite Conical-Cylindrical Shell. AIAA SciTech 

2023 Forum, AIAA paper no. AIAA 2023-1525, National Harbor, MD, 

January 2023.

25. Soltz, B.; Goyal, V.; Rome, J.; and Qu, X.: Structural Requirements, 

Process Simulation, and Residual Stress Characterization for 

Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Parts. AIAA 2023-2078, https:// 

doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2078, AIAA Scitech 2023, National Harbor, 

MD, January 23-27, 2023.

26. Soltz, B.; Sivess, A.; Hickman, M.; Ghazari, A. and Shimizu, L.: Static 

Load Testing and Analysis Recommendations For Space Vehicles. 

OTR 2023-00653, 33rd Aerospace Testing Seminar, The Aerospace 

Corporation, May 16, 2023.

27. Song, K.; Mikulas, M.; Mahlin, M.; and Cassady, J.: Sizing and Design 

Tool for Tall Lunar Tower. AIAA-2023-0382, SciTech 2023, National 

Harbor, MD, January 2023.

28. Hammel, J.: Utilizing 3D-DIC on the Mars 2020 Rover Wheel 

Assembly: Test-Analysis Correlation. IEEE, March 2023.

29. Song, K.; Stark, A.; Amundsen, R.; Mikulas, M.; Mahlin, M.; and 

Cassady, J.: Sizing, Buckling, and Thermal-Structural Analysis of Tall 

Lunar Tower. 2023 AIAA ASCEND, Las Vegas, NV, October 2023.

30. TerMaath, S.: Multi-scale Computational Structural Mechanics. TuringOden Workshop on Data Science and Machine Learning. Alan Turing 

Institute, London, January 25-27, 2023.

31. TerMaath, S.; Crusenberry, C.; and Arndt, C.: Reduced Order Modeling of 

Progressive Failure in Composite/Metal Structure. 6th International Conference on Protective Structures, Auburn University, May 14-17, 2023.

32. TerMaath, S.: Probabilistic multi-scale characterization and prediction 

of bimaterial bondline structural reliability. Canadian National Research 

Council, Ottawa, June 1, 2023.

33. TerMaath, S.; Ingling, B.; Noland, J.; and Hart, D.: Evaluation of 

low-velocity impact damage in metal/composite layered structure. 8th 

International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering (IALCCE). 

Milano, Italy, July 2-6, 2023.

34. Twombly, E.; Hill, L.; Wilkowski, G.; Brust, B.; Lin, B.; and Tregoning, 

R.: Evaluation of the Inherent LBB Behavior of Small-Diameter Class 

1 and 2 Nuclear Piping Systems. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping 

Conference, Paper PVP2023-107685, Atlanta, GA, July 2023.

35. Ytuarte, E.; Ragheb, H.; Sobey, A.; and TerMaath, S.: Peridynamics 

with stochastic bond strengths for determination of final failure in 

composite laminates. ASCE Engineering Mechanics Institute, Georgia 

Tech, Atlanta, GA, June 6-9, 2023.2022, Park City, UT.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

1. Driscoll, A. and Vining, G.: Debunking Stress Rupture Theories Using 

Weibull Regression Plots. Fall Technical Conference, October 12-14, 

2022, Park City, UT

2. Driscoll, A.: Advances in Stress Rupture Modeling: A Case Study for 

Predicting COPV Reliability. Joint Statistical Meetings, August 5-10, 

2023, Toronto, Canada.

3. Huang, Z. C.: Toward Closed Form Formulas for System Reliability 

and Confidence Quantification. 2023 Annual Reliability and 

Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), January 23-26, 2023, DOI: 

10.1109/RAMS51473.2023.10088214.

4. Parker, P. and Wilson, S.: Motivating Statistical Research for NASA 

Applications. Joint Statistical Meetings, August 5-10, 2023, Toronto, 

Canada.

THERMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION

1. Rickman, S.: Re-Architecting the NASA Wire Derating Approach, 

Phase II, Wire and Wire Bundle Ampacity Testing and Analysis. 

Aerospace Electrical Interconnect Symposium, October 2022, 

Houston, TX.

2. Rickman, S.: Space Mission Thermal Control and Protection 

Challenges – Past, Present, and Future. The Intersociety Conference 

on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems 

(ITherm), June 2023, Orlando, FL.

3. Rickman, S.: Introduction to Orbits. Rice/Envision Aerospace and 

Aviation Academy, June 2023, Houston, TX.

4. Rickman, S.: Development and Application of a Novel Calorimetry 

Technique for the Study of Lithium-Ion Cell Thermal Runaway., 

International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), July 

2023, Calgary, Canada.

5. Rickman, S.: Introduction to On-Orbit Thermal Environments. Thermal 

and Fluids Analysis Workshop (TFAWS), August 2023, College Park, 

MD.

6. Shafirovich, E. and Rickman, S.: A Warm Garage for a Lunar Rover, 

Commercial Lunar Payload Services. Survive the Night Technology 

Workshop, December 2022, Cleveland, OH.

The Origin of the NESC Insignia

“I named my spacecraft Sigma Seven. Sigma, a Greek

symbol for the sum of the elements of an equation, stands

for engineering excellence. That was my goal, engineering

excellence.” - Wally Schirra

The NESC’s unique insignia has its roots in the early Mercury 

program. For the NESC, the sigma also represents engineering 

excellence. While the Sigma Seven represented the seven 

Mercury astronauts, the "10" in the NESC insignia represents 

the 10 NASA centers. The NESC draws upon resources from the 

entire Agency to ensure engineering excellence.

Did you know?

Each NASA center has a local NESC representative who serves

as a point-of-contact for center-based technical issues. 

Contact the NESC

• Kenneth R. Hamm, Jr., Ames Research Center 

• Dr. W. Lance Richards, Armstrong Flight Research Center

• Robert S. Jankovsky, Glenn Research Center

• Carmel A. Conaty, Goddard Space Flight Center

• Kimberly A. Simpson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

• Joel W. Sills, Johnson Space Center

• Stephen A. Minute, Kennedy Space Center

• K. Elliott Cramer, Langley Research Center

• Steven J. Gentz, Marshall Space Flight Center

• Michael D. Smiles, Stennis Space Center

Find your local NESC contact through the NASA Enterprise Directory.

NESC Chief Engineers:

Artist Cece Bibby painting Sigma Seven logo on Mercury 

spacecraft with astronaut Wally Schirra in 1962.

NASA Engineering & Safety Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Mail Stop 118

Hampton, VA 23681

NASA.GOV/NESC
NASA Engineering & Safety Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Mail Stop 118

Hampton, VA 23681

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

NP-2023-10-108-LaRC

NASA.GOV/NESC