NASA Engineering

& Safety Center

The NESC 2016 Technical Update

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov
NASA Engineering

& Safety Center

Technical Update

2016

For general information and requests

for technical assistance visit us at: 

nesc.nasa.gov

For anonymous requests write to:

NESC 

NASA Langley Research Center

Mail Stop 118

Hampton, VA 23681
1

With five human spaceflight programs in development, the James 

Webb Space Telescope in critical testing, and ongoing achievements 

in maintaining the International Space Station, NASA was exceptionally 

busy in 2016. The NESC was busy as well in support of these programs 

– in 2016 they conducted their largest number of assessments since 

NESC’s inception, helping to reduce or mitigate the Office of the Chief 

Engineer top technical risks in the Agency. In the midst of this progress, NASA has been 

evolving its operational model to include capability leadership, and the NESC stepped up 

to participate in the execution of this model by operating in the leadership roles crucial 

to the Agency’s future. The NESC has always been dedicated to supporting NASA’s 

vision. I am confident that as NASA looks forward to new exploration and discoveries, 

the NESC will continue to provide the technical expertise the Agency needs to keep its 

vision moving forward.

Ralph Roe, Jr., NASA Chief Engineer Now in its 14th year and having logged in its 700th assessment in 

2016, the NESC continues to demonstrate its depth and breadth 

of expertise as it remains a strong and reliable technical resource for the 

Agency. With more assessments initiated this year than ever before, the 

NESC focused on smaller, shorter duration activities that offered a varied 

portfolio of technical challenges. Their efforts reflect the Agency’s work to 

mature several programs, such as the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch 

System, and Ground Systems Development and Operations, toward qualification and 

flight readiness. They also engaged with the Agency’s Commercial Crew Program as 

its commercial partners ready their own vehicles for spaceflight. Even with the vast 

assessment work, the NESC continues to refine Agency capability leadership roles, 

ensuring those capabilities are ready to support current and emerging NASA mission 

needs. With every new challenge it takes on, the NESC helps prepare the Agency for 

new opportunities in aeronautics, science, and space exploration.

Robert Lightfoot, NASA Associate Administrator

TABLE of CONTENTS

NESC Overview 

2-3

An Interview with Deputy

Director Mike Kirsch

4-5

Workforce Development

6-7

NESC at the Centers

8-17

Knowledge Products

Overview

18-19

Assessments

20-30

Discipline Focus

31-37

Innovative Techniques

38-42

NESC Honor Awards

44-45

NESC Leadership Team

46

NESC Alumni

47

Publications

48-50
2 3

As NASA’s priorities have evolved, the NESC has 

responded. There has been a shift within NASA over the 

past decade from projects in the flight/operational phase 

to those that are in the design phase. The NASA Office 

of the Chief Engineer (OCE) maintains a list of what the 

Chief Engineer considers to be the Agency’s top technical 

risks. Because the NESC as an organization reports to 

the Chief Engineer, the NESC’s priorities reflect the OCE’s 

risks (see sidebar on page 5). For example, one of the top 

risks is obtaining adequate insight into the Commercial 

Crew Program’s (CCP) design and process development. 

Some of the NESC activities to mitigate this risk include 

evaluation of CCP occupant (i.e. astronaut) protection 

approach, assessing CCP burst and proof pressure 

factors for pressure vessels, supporting parachute 

modeling capability, and reviewing CCP’s engineering and 

integration processes. The NESC currently has over 80 

active assessments, so the technical risk list is important 

as a tool to help prioritize which requests are accepted.

As missions end and new ones begin, there are new 

challenges to supplant the old ones. The NESC has the 

flexibility to direct and redirect its focus to the highest 

risks and highest priorities for the Agency and to address 

requests that come from anywhere. This flexibility is due in 

part to the NESC’s independence from any one program, 

project, or mission directorate. The NESC functions as a 

resource for the entire Agency.

For more information or to submit a request, contact your 

Center’s NESC Chief Engineer or visit www.nesc.nasa.gov

Thirteen years ago, NASA was focused on safely 

returning the Space Shuttle fleet to service following 

the Columbia accident. Returning to flight meant NASA 

could resume construction of the International Space 

Station (ISS) and take crews and supplies to and from 

the ISS. Also that year, the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center (NESC) was formed, and a substantial portion of 

the NESC’s work was associated with getting the Space 

Shuttle Program ready to fly again. 

Today, the Space Shuttle orbiters are museum exhibits. The 

ISS is complete and is a fully operational laboratory. NASA 

is developing the capability to transport astronauts to 

destinations beyond the ISS. Commercial providers bring 

supplies to ISS and are developing spacecraft to bring 

astronauts there as well. The NESC is as active as ever, 

with a much more diverse workload that supports different 

stakeholders with different missions and requirements. 

The fundamental tenets from which the NESC was founded 

have not changed since 2003. Foremost is the philosophy 

that robust engineering is essential in promoting safety 

and mission success. The NESC realizes this philosophy 

by employing a network of scientists and engineers from 

across the country, coming from academia, government, 

industry, and all of the NASA Centers and installations. 

This network is organized by Technical Discipline Teams 

(TDTs), and most are led by a NASA Technical Fellow. 

The 21 TDTs serve as ready pools of engineering talent 

from which to draw support for NESC assessments that 

address the toughest technical problems arising from any 

of NASA’s projects. These assessments are modeled after 

the traditional tiger team concept of a streamlined, focused 

team dedicated to addressing a particular technical issue.

The TDTs are comprised of approximately 800 scientists 

and engineers from across NASA, industry, and academia. 

They do not work directly for the NESC, but make up the 

NESC extended team. The NESC core team — those 

badged to the NESC — is much smaller with around 50 

employees spread throughout all 10 NASA Centers. The 

core team includes the NESC Director and his office, 

the Principal Engineers, the NESC Chief Engineers, the 

NASA Technical Fellows, the NESC Integration Office, 

and the Management and Technical Support Office. 

This core leadership team includes the NESC Review 

Board (NRB). The NRB demonstrates another tenet of 

the NESC: embracing diversity to produce decisions 

that are technically sound and robust. The findings, 

observations, recommendations, and reports resulting 

from NESC assessments must be approved by the NRB 

prior to release. The various technical disciplines of the 

NRB members provide a spectrum of points of view, which 

strengthens the pedigree and technical justification of the 

final products.

Reducing NASA’s Risks is NESC’s Priority

Aeronautics 

Research

1%

Science

18%

Broad Agency/

External

13%

Human Exploration

and Operations

65%

Space

Technology

3%

Accepted Requests by Mission Directorate Sources of Accepted Requests

Safety & Mission

Assurance at Centers 3%

Program

Management 18%

NESC 19%

Engineering & Scientific 

Organizations 46%

Anonymous 

1% 

Other NASA Offices 3%

Office of Chief 

Engineer 2%

Center 

Management 

2%

Office of Safety and

Mission Assurance 2% 

External to Agency 4%

Accepted Requests Since 2003: 715 total, 68 for fiscal year 2016

Data as of September 30, 2016

NESC Review Board NESC Review Board

NESC Core and Extended 

Team Members

Assessment Team

Request 

submitted

(by anyone)

Request

processed, evaluated,

and accepted

Assessment team formed

and plan developed and 

approved

Deliver final 

report to 

stakeholders

Document findings, 

observations, and 

recommendations

Proceed with assessment 

(testing, data collection, 

modeling, and analysis)

Approval Peer review and approval

Performing NESC Assessments

Submitted requests 

evaluated based on NESC 

task priorities and OCE risks

NESC Assessment Selection Priorities 1-5

NASA Office of the Chief Engineer

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Core Team

PEs

NESC Principal

Engineers

NCEs

NESC Chief

Engineers

Office of the 

Director

NIO

NESC Integration

Office

MTSO

Management and 

Technical Support 

Office

NASA

Technical Fellows

Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs)

There are more than 800 TDT members

Other Gov.

6%

Academia

4%

Industry

20%

NASA

70%

NRB

NESC Review Board

� Aerosciences

� Avionics

� Electrical Power

� Flight Mechanics

� Guidance, Navigation,

 and Control

� Human Factors

� Human Spaceflight

 Operations

� Environmental

Control/Life Support

� Loads and Dynamics

� Materials

� Mechanical Systems

� Nondestructive

 Evaluation

� Nuclear Power and

 Propulsion

� Passive Thermal

� Propulsion

� Robotic Spaceflight

� Sensors/

 Instrumentation

� Space Environments

� Software

� Structures

� Systems Engineering
4 5

As the NESC Deputy Director, Michael Kirsch is 

navigating the NESC’s technical portfolio through 

a rough fiscal climate — working within a fixed budget 

while juggling a constant influx of requests for the 

NESC’s technical expertise. In this Q&A, he explains 

the delicate balance required to weigh those budget 

constraints against which assessments will offer the best 

opportunities to mitigate NASA’s top technical risks. 

You have held several positions at the NESC 

including Principal Engineer (PE), Manager of 

the Management and Technical Support Office 

(MTSO), and now Deputy Director. How have those 

positions prepared you to make decisions on what 

work the NESC will pursue?

As a PE, I led several independent technical assessments 

that included developing an independent Crew 

Exploration Vehicle (CEV) design, evaluating the use of 

carbon fiber composites on Orion’s crew module primary 

structure, fabricating a full-scale composite crew module 

(CCM), and contributing to an alternate design of the 

Orion heatshield carrier structure. Those projects put my 

technical background from White Sands to good use, but 

they also offered me the chance to hone my management 

skills. Each assessment involved bringing in experts 

from different NASA Centers, multiple disciplines, and 

technical backgrounds. I had to keep that team focused, 

adjust plans, and resolve issues as we progressed toward 

the project objective, all within a cost and schedule 

constraint. 

And in every assessment, I made a conscious effort to 

find ways to manage the financial aspects. I developed 

tools and techniques to manage cost estimates and 

progress against actual cost and performance, which I 

later used as the MTSO Manager and Deputy Director to 

help manage the total NESC technical portfolio. So my 

technical background combined with that management 

experience has helped me prioritize and figure out how 

best to apply our NESC resources.

The NESC receives a continuous influx of requests 

from NASA programs and projects. How do you 

mesh such a dynamic workload with a fixed 

budget?

Fortunately, the demand for our support has exceeded our 

capacity, which is a great place to be, but it also requires 

you to make judgments on what work will have the biggest 

benefit for the Agency. During 2015 and 2016, we were 

starting the year almost fully encumbered. There were 

many times that, in order to take on higher priority work, 

we had to make some tough decisions to descope some 

of the work, reduce the amount of test or development 

work that we had originally planned, or defer certain work 

to the following year. In some cases we were able to 

negotiate partnerships with our stakeholders 

to share some of the expenses. For 2017, I have no doubt 

that early into the fiscal year (FY) we will be once again 

fully subscribed.

What is driving the increase in high priority work?

I believe the Agency may be as busy as it’s ever been 

in terms of transitioning development projects into 

qualification testing. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (MPCV) Program, the Space Launch System 

(SLS) Program, Ground Systems Development and 

Operations (GSDO), and the Commercial Crew Program 

(CCP) are all going into the development and test phase 

of their life cycles. And it’s during development and test 

that many technical issues emerge. I think that’s where 

the NESC has contributed and will continue to have 

good opportunities to help those programs achieve their 

objectives. The overall demand on NESC expertise and 

support is going to be as high as it’s ever been. To me it’s 

analogous to the days of the Shuttle’s return to flight, but 

more so because it involves several programs. 

From a broader NASA perspective, how is the 

NESC helping to mitigate the Agency’s top 

technical risks?

When former NESC Director Ralph Roe took the 

position of NASA Chief Engineer, he put emphasis on 

understanding what he considers to be the Agency’s 

top technical risks. He spent time with the NASA’s 

engineering directors, chief engineers, and programs to 

identify those risks. That helped focus the engineering 

community on prioritizing workloads. At the NESC, 

we are also prioritizing and aligning our portfolio with 

those top technical risks to ensure we are contributing 

to their mitigation. The NESC was formed to help the 

Agency solve its toughest technical challenges. Some 

of those top risks aren’t in the NESC’s mission, such as 

maintaining a broad industrial base for critical spacecraft 

skills, but helping the SLS, Orion MPCV, or GSDO close 

on their designs within their cost schedule and mass 

constraints are areas where the NESC can help.

As Deputy Director, how has your perspective 

on the NESC changed since your days as a PE?

As a PE, I was very singularly focused on the objective 

associated with my particular task. It was about 

delivering an alternate design for the CEV or delivering 

a CCM. As the MTSO Manager and now as Deputy 

Director, I want to know about NASA’s exploration 

mission, science mission, or aeronautics mission. It’s a 

much broader check on whether our day-to-day role is 

helping the Agency achieve its mission. The challenges 

are much bigger than developing an alternate design for 

the Orion heatshield. Our NESC technical leads—the 

NASA Technical Fellows, the Principal Engineers, and 

the NESC Chief Engineers—maintain a sharp focus on 

the individual technical goals of their tasks, but from 

the NESC’s director’s office perspective, we’re trying to 

make sure the NESC portfolio is helping the Agency as a 

whole achieve its objectives. 

OCE Agency Technical Risks Currently

Supported by the NESC 

• CCP insight into partner designs to enable 

their success and certify vehicles for human 

spaceflight

• Exploration Systems Development (ESD) 

integration of the three human spaceflight

programs using a new model

• Sustaining ISS through 2024

• James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 

complexity with cryogenic systems and the 

number of mechanisms and deployments 

required for mission success

• Closure of ESD designs of MPCV/SLS/GSDO

• Industrial base is shrinking along with crosscutting supply chain issue

• 21st century technology tools and methods 

successfully incorporated into NASA programs 

and projects

Percent of NESC FY 2016 Assessments

Supporting Office of the Chief Engineer

(OCE) Agency Technical Risks

FY 2016 In-progress Requests by NESC Assessment Selection Priorities

How the NESC keeps its focus on technical risks
6 7

 The key to shaping the next generation of engineers

Jon Haas & 

Ilse Alcantara

Ilse Alcantara drives about an 

hour from her home base in El 

Paso, Texas, to her Universities 

Space Research Association 

internship with the NESC in 

Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

But she does not mind the 

commute. The metallurgical 

and materials engineering 

graduate student is gaining 

invaluable experience in her 

field by performing materials 

testing on frangible joints, the 

explosive connections NASA 

uses to separate stages and 

fairings on spacecraft. And 

with guidance from her NESC 

mentors at NASA’s White 

Sands Test Facility, Ms. 

Alcantara has honed skills that 

will serve her well throughout 

her career. 

Having students or earlycareer engineers work on 

assessments is a tenet of the 

NESC, but the relationship 

between mentor and mentee 

can be tough to navigate, 

said Jon Haas, an Associate 

Principal Engineer working 

on the NESC assessment to 

analyze risks associated with 

these mission-critical joints. 

“Mentoring is a lot of work, 

but done right, the rewards 

are tremendous. 

It begins with finding the right 

person. “You have to start with someone who not only 

has the right skill set, but also the right temperament,” 

Mr. Haas said. After that, good mentoring becomes a 

balancing act. “It’s giving the guidance and feedback 

they need to do the job, while at the same time not 

being so involved that they don’t have the opportunity to 

develop as a professional.”

“Students are transitioning from being dependent on 

the institution to becoming independent engineers and 

scientists. You need to keep them engaged in work 

that’s interesting, yet not too 

far afield from their skill set; 

give challenging assignments 

while keeping an eye on 

their development; and most 

importantly, listen, because 

they are bringing a new 

perspective to your work.”

Ms. Alcantara appreciates the 

team’s mentoring approach. 

“In some aspects they have 

really mentored me, and 

whenever I have questions, I 

have them available to answer. 

But on my main project, I 

also work independently. It’s 

a challenge, but I’ve really 

enjoyed it.” 

The team has been pleased 

with her efforts to characterize 

the physics and mechanics

of how frangible joints break. 

She has designed test samples, 

prepped them for testing,

and performed statistical 

analysis on test data, which 

feeds into the team’s computational models of frangible 

joint operation. “We’ve given 

her several assignments and 

she’s been so enthusiastic,” 

Mr. Haas said. “Her work is 

high quality.”

“It’s a great group of scientists 

and professionals who are 

obviously really great at what 

they do,” added Ms. Alcantara. 

“I’m learning about all aspects 

of frangible joints, working with 

statistics, design of experiments, and reliability—things I 

would have never heard of in school. I’ve grown so much. 

I feel I’m a better engineer.” 

From the NESC perspective, “We benefit by bringing in 

another viewpoint and a creative mind,” said Mr. Haas. 

“The work she’s doing has had a positive impact on this 

complex project. And the level of curiosity and motivation 

with students adds to the diversity in the NESC model. 

As for me, there’s a great deal of personal satisfaction 

when mentoring someone well. It makes me feel useful.” 

Scott West & Juan Carlos Lopez

When Juan Carlos Lopez joined the NESC Risks of 

Frangible Joint Designs assessment, he brought a number 

of key skills to the team, particularly in programming. But 

the aerospace engineer, still early in his career at JSC, 

found that some aspects of finite element analysis (FEA) 

and modeling were new to him. And the assessment 

required quite a bit of statistical analysis.

“I took a foundations of statistics class in college, but 

that was it,” said Mr. Lopez, who during the assessment, 

managed to find a host of mentors willing to help him 

along the way. 

First among them was NESC Chief Engineer at JSC, Scott 

West, who brought Mr. Lopez on board, offering him the 

chance to gain experience in test data processing and 

analysis, as well as nonlinear dynamic analysis with LSDYNA. “He explained the project, the structure of the 

team, and where I fit in. He wanted me to understand 

the big picture and the team’s overall goal,” said Mr. 

Lopez. As time went on, Mr. West offered feedback on his 

performance, which Mr. Lopez used to gauge how well his 

new skills were improving. 

When it came to the assessment’s statistical aspects, 

Mr. Lopez turned to another mentor, Ken Johnson, an 

NESC statistician at MSFC. Even though Mr. Johnson 

was located in Huntsville, Alabama, it did not impede the 

mentoring process. “We took advantage of Skype to 

chat over the internet. Ken answered questions for 

me, and even pulled together slides and presentations on 

basic concepts to help me understand,” Mr. Lopez said. 

“That made me realize how the metrics I was collecting 

would be used and how they would impact the project’s 

overall results.” 

During the assessment, Mr. Lopez was able to pull out 

important metrics of function and graphically display the 

results for analysis and comparison by writing Matrix 

Laboratory (MATLAB) code that processed the numerous 

gigabytes of test data. 

“I mainly focused on FEA to investigate the effects of 

various parameters in a frangible joint’s performance,” 

he said. He developed and ran a series of finite element 

models in LS-DYNA, identified performance metrics, 

and worked with the team to assess the data. He also 

developed innovative tools in MATLAB to automate and 

efficiently process computational and empirical data. 

When Mr. Lopez needed help with new FEA concepts, he 

called on mentor and engineer Claude Bryant. “I usually 

went to Claude with questions and concerns on the 

models I was working on. I was grateful to have someone 

willing to share some of his knowledge with me.”

Mr. Lopez’s work allowed the processing of data from 

hundreds of tests and thousands of LS-DYNA analysis 

runs, many of which he conducted. His MATLAB 

code helped in the team’s understanding of 

frangible joint performance under a variety 

of design parameters. 

The assessment is in its final stages, but 

Mr. Lopez is already confident of what 

he will take away from the experience. 

“I’ve worked closely with engineers, 

statisticians, and technicians from 

NESC, NASA Centers, and contracting 

agencies, and I’ve enhanced my technical 

expertise in FEA, testing, data processing, 

statistical analysis, modeling, and 

project management.” Mr. Lopez 

also gained a network of mentors, 

which combined with his newly 

acquired skills will be an 

asset in future projects with 

JSC’s structural engineering 

division. “This is probably 

one of the most challenging 

and rewarding projects I’ve 

participated in so far.” 

Graduate student Ilse Alcantara and NESC Associate Principal 

Engineer Jon Haas inspect the pre-test instrumentation setup of a frangible joint at White Sands Test Facility.

Juan Carlos Lopez (right) discusses 

an FEA model with mentor and NESC 

Chief Engineer at JSC, Scott West.
8 9

The NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) supports 

many Agency and NESC activities by leveraging 

its unique and diverse capabilities including 

aeronautics research; computational fluid 

dynamics; wind tunnel testing; entry, descent, and 

landing (EDL); arc jet testing of advanced thermal 

protection system (TPS) materials and systems; 

life science and human factors research; planetary 

and space science; astronomy and astrophysics; 

intelligent system design; and high-speed 

computation. Many of these areas of expertise 

have been brought to bear on NESC technical 

assessments and in support of the Technical 

Discipline Teams (TDTs) throughout 2016. ARC has 

representatives on 14 of the NESC TDTs.

NESC assessment support has been varied and 

diverse as well, with ARC leading or supporting 

work on 11 assessments over the past year. 

These include an ARC-led study of aerodynamic 

load buffeting on launch vehicles using pressure sensitive 

paint and high-speed pressure sensors, participation in 

the investigation of Avcoat TPS material cracking for the 

Orion crew module, numerous independent EDL modeling 

studies for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), and 

review of major structures and test requirements also for 

CCP.

New Techniques for Measuring Buffet 

In late 2015, Dr. James Ross put his expertise in 

experimental aerodynamics to work in the ARC transonic 

wind tunnel to find out if unsteady pressure sensitive paint 

(uPSP) combined with unsteady pressure transducers 

could help engineers better predict the potential for 

high buffet environments on launch vehicles. The wind 

tunnel tests, which were conducted as part of the NESC 

assessment, Launch Vehicle Buffet Verification Testing, 

were successful. Dr. Ross and his team are excited 

about how the development of new buffet measurement 

techniques will benefit NASA’s new Space Launch System 

as well as the aerospace industry. The ability to better 

understand and predict unsteady flows and buffeting 

during the ascent of a launch vehicle will be a significant 

advancement in the aerosciences discipline, said Dr. 

Ross. “A lot of people are interested in our results.”

During wind tunnel testing, NASA and commercial 

companies sent in people to observe. “They 

wanted to see what we were doing and figure 

out how much these new techniques could 

help their own processes,” he said. As with his 

work on previous NESC assessments, such as 

characterizing wake for the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle (MPCV), Dr. Ross appreciates the 

wide variety of people involved in the assessments. 

“When you have an interesting group of people 

who are excited about doing the testing, the team 

is a lot more productive, and you get exposed to 

people you wouldn’t normally work with in your 

day-to-day work at NASA.”

A Detail-Driven Approach to 

Understanding TPS

Because of his expertise in TPS for atmospheric 

entry, the NESC has enlisted Dr. Peter Gage to work on 

assessments involving the Orion MPCV heatshield. 

Dr. Gage has brought his extensive background and 

experience, gained through two decades of work at ARC, 

to the NESC’s understanding of the material properties 

of Avcoat, which is used in TPS, and to the determination 

of the root causes of discrepancies that arose during 

the processing of the Orion crew module heatshield. 

His interest in the systems engineering aspects of root 

cause and risk analysis helped with the development of 

fault trees and prioritization of tests to isolate effects of 

candidate causes. His working knowledge of the many 

disciplines that go into thermal protection has been 

integral to the NESC’s study of the TPS architecture 

planned for Exploration Mission-1. 

“I liked the rigor the NESC could bring to the root cause 

investigation. That approach has significantly increased 

our understanding of the Avcoat material behavior,” said 

Dr. Gage. The patience to drive down to the details is 

something he has taken back to his work on materials 

development activities at ARC, which he said has improved 

the precision with which he tackles test planning and 

execution.

The Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) 

provided engineering technical support and 

expertise to several NESC assessments including 

Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs, The

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) Project, 

the Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group

(CPVWG), and the Electrical Power System Review

assessment for the Commercial Crew Program 

(CCP). In early 2016, AFRC collaborated with JSC 

to assist the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 

Astronomy Project in developing a simplified 

methodology to estimate the maximum liquid 

helium cryostat pressure from a vacuum jacket 

failure. AFRC engineers were also invited by four 

NASA Technical Fellows to give presentations at 

technical discipline team face-to-face meetings 

and monthly seminars.

Quantifying the Risk of Frangible Joints 

Through Testing

As the recipient of the 2015 NESC Engineering Excellence 

Award, Christopher Kostyk continued to serve in his role 

as the leader of the data team for Assessing Risks of 

Frangible Joint Designs. In this capacity, Mr. Kostyk led 

the design of the high-speed instrumentation suite that 

would capture the ephemeral activity associated with 

the detonation event. Mr. Kostyk continued to apply his 

expertise in extracting quantitative data from the highspeed video footage that helped inform the team on 

various aspects of the short life of a frangible joint.

Advanced Instrumentation Support for 

Multiple NESC Projects

AFRC’s Fiber Optic Sensing System (FOSS) Team 

supported several NESC projects in 2016 including 

the CPVWG, Space-X Electrical Power System Review

assessment, and an internal study led by JSC to develop 

new techniques to detect impact damage on spacecraft. 

The multidisciplinary team included Dr. Patrick 

Chan, optics engineer; Jeff Howell, aerospace 

instrumentation technician; Anthony Piazza, 

instrumentation specialist; Allen Parker, electrical 

engineer; and Francisco Peña, an aerospace 

engineer hired by AFRC in 2015. 

One of the largest, most complex efforts that the 

FOSS Team supported was the SBKF Project. This 

activity involved exploiting the benefits of fiber 

optic sensing technology to dramatically increase 

insight into the physical response of an 8-foot 

diameter composite barrel structure subjected to 

large-scale testing at MSFC. The SBKF activity is 

a multi-Center assessment focused on designing 

leaner and more efficient rocket shell structures 

through new designs, simulations, and testing. 

The FOSS Team designed the sensor layout and 

applied nearly 16,000 fiber optic strain sensors 

located on the inner and outer surfaces of the barrel 

in a 9-day period. Activities also included designing 

communication and data acquisition interfaces with test 

systems at MSFC to support testing. The large data set 

has helped the engineers verify their buckling prediction 

models for large-scale shell structures with the goal of 

reducing mass and increasing payload. 

Mr. Howell enjoyed participating on the SBKF Team and 

the challenge of tackling the requirements of the project. 

He was responsible for developing new sensor installation 

methods that dramatically reduced installation time and 

travel costs. According to Project Manager Dr. Marc 

Schultz, “The AFRC FOSS Team was great to work with 

during the testing of our first 8-foot diameter composite 

cylinder test. The FOSS Team was very responsive and 

modified real-time displays each day to better interrogate 

behavior seen the previous day. During testing, the fiberoptic strain sensors were instrumental in understanding 

the behavior of the test article near the boundaries where 

other instrumentation was ineffective.”

Dax Rios (L) and Christopher Kostyk. The FOSS Team (left to right): Dr. Patrick Chan, Jeff Howell, Allen Parker, 

Francisco Peña, and Anthony Piazza.

Dr. James Ross Dr. Peter Gage

Dr. W. Lance 

Richards

NESC Chief

Engineer

10 AFRC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Kenneth R.

Hamm, Jr.

NESC Chief

Engineer

31 ARC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Armstrong Flight Research Center

Ames Research Center
10 11

Glenn Research Center

The Glenn Research Center (GRC) provided a 

broad spectrum of technical expertise in support 

of NESC assessments and the NESC Technical 

Discipline Teams (TDTs). GRC supported 18 NESC 

assessments and 17 of the NESC TDTs with 56 

engineers. These activities supported all mission 

directorates as well as some crosscutting discipline 

activities. Significant contributions this year were in 

support of the many lithium-ion battery assessments 

as well as continued support for composite 

overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) assessments. 

The Discipline Deputies for the Nuclear Power and 

Propulsion and Electrical Power TDTs are resident 

at GRC. 

Reliability of COPVs in Space

As an aerospace engineer in the GRC Structures and 

Materials Division, Dr. Pappu Murthy has brought his 

expertise in composite mechanics, probabilistic methods, 

and optimization to the NESC’s investigation on the safety of 

COPVs. Dr. Murthy has built reliability models and developed 

user-friendly software based on the COPV test data gathered 

at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility. “Our aim is ensuring the 

reliability of COPVs deployed in many space missions and on 

the International Space Station (ISS),” he said. “We develop 

and validate our models based upon data obtained by testing 

subscale vessels and composite strands.”

Dr. Murthy’s work with the NESC dates back to the Kevlarbased pressure vessels used during Space Shuttle missions. 

Carbon fiber-based composites have since replaced Kevlar, 

but the need to understand COPV reliability remains. 

“Probabilistic approaches are my passion,” said Dr. Murthy, 

and he brings that to his work with COPVs. “These methods 

enable us to compute component reliability for a given 

mission. Reliable operation of COPVs is mission critical as 

they store high pressure gasses, and any breach could lead to 

a catastrophic loss of mission and crew.” 

A variety of discipline experts on the NESC team is key to 

ensuring COPV safety, he added. “We have experts 

in statistics, testing, reliability, and composites from 

all over NASA as well as academia working on this 

assessment. It’s a close-knit team.” 

Making Battery Technology Safer

Ms. Concha Reid, a battery specialist in the 

Photovoltaics and Electrochemical Systems Branch 

at GRC, has worked on several NESC assessments, 

most recently on the Simplified Aid for Extravehicular 

Activity Rescue (SAFER) Battery Assessment. The 

SAFER battery is used in self-propelled jet packs to 

allow astronauts outside the ISS to maneuver safely 

back to the airlock in an emergency. 

The battery used in the SAFER jet packs is lithiumbased. “After some high profile cases in industry of 

thermal runaway with lithium-ion batteries, NASA is 

looking at the design of its lithium-based batteries 

to ensure we’re following proper engineering principles 

to mitigate thermal runaway propagation from a failure or 

internal short,” said Ms. Reid. 

Working with the NESC has given Ms. Reid a new perspective 

on her work. “NESC has a way of challenging you and getting 

you out of your comfort zone. Being a key member of the 

SAFER team, I’ve contributed in ways I hadn’t imagined by 

having an immediate impact on human missions.” And she 

is applying what she has learned to her work at GRC. 

“Things I’m learning about the consequences of packing 

cells too closely together in a battery and not allowing for 

adequate heat rejection paths informs my design work 

for other projects, such as the Gondola High Altitude 

Planetary Balloon System (GHAPS). Now that we’ve done 

all the ground work to understand best practices to design 

a battery to be robust against thermal runaway propagation, 

I know what additional factors to consider when I design 

new batteries for NASA applications, such as the GHAPS 

battery.”

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) supported 

15 assessments and investigations in 2016, leading 

the assessments for the Effects of Storage and 

Humidity on Dry Film Lubricant Performance; 

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) 

Parts Testing for Commercial Crew Program (CCP); 

and CCP Avionics Architecture Review. GSFC 

provided expertise to 17 Technical Discipline 

Teams in 2016 with 72 engineers, technicians, 

and scientists. GSFC is the resident Center for the 

NASA Technical Fellows for Systems Engineering; 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control; Mechanical 

Systems; and Avionics.

Gaining Insight on EEE Parts

Dr. Kusum Sahu of the GSFC Parts, Packaging, and 

Technology Branch is helping the NESC analyze and 

test the EEE parts used on the CCP. Her analysis 

will help the NESC better understand the procurement 

specifications for EEE parts used by our CCP partners and 

how the reliability of these parts compares to military or 

space-grade parts.

Dr. Sahu has extensive experience in managing EEE part 

programs for spaceflight hardware, from parts selection and 

approval to procurement, testing, and kitting for assembly 

on printed circuit boards. She has also played a key role in 

analyzing anomalies or failures that might occur during the 

board-, box-, or system-level testing to determine the root 

cause of failures. “We then advise on how the failures could 

be avoided by proper application of the parts or suggest 

alternative parts.”

That expertise led her to work on the NESC assessment EEE 

Parts Testing for CCP. “We are conducting limited testing 

in our parts analysis lab to gather reliability information 

and independently determine any manufacturing defects 

and the impact of environmental stresses such as high 

temperature cycling or moisture creep into the package,” 

she said. Dr. Sahu is also helping to determine the pros 

and cons of part-level vs board-level vs box-level testing of 

flight hardware and testing of many state-of-theart commercial off-the-shelf parts. 

“We are gaining insight into the approaches used 

by our commercial crew partners,” said Dr. Sahu. 

“And we’re trying to find ways to add value to their 

processes in terms of selecting and testing of EEE 

parts in a cost effective manner.” 

Improving Avionics Reliability and Safety

While his desk is at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, 

Dwayne Morgan has had the opportunity to work 

with all of the NASA Centers over the years, as well 

as the NESC. With expertise in avionics design 

and development, Mr. Morgan is the technical lead 

for the NESC’s CCP Avionics Architecture Review 

assessment, where he is helping to evaluate the 

fault tolerance and redundancy of a proposed flight 

avionics architecture for crewed missions.

“Avionics encompasses a large field,” said Mr. Morgan, 

which affords him the chance to work on many different 

programs at NASA. “It’s a great opportunity to continue 

learning and see how this discipline is evolving, and how 

we get data securely to distant planets, as well as our own 

planet, in ways that are reliable and safe.”

Prior to this work, Mr. Morgan was the avionics lead on the 

NESC’s Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-II (ICESat-2) 

Laser Pointing assessment where the NESC was asked to 

review the function of the Advanced Topographical Laser 

Altimeter System beam steering mechanism. The team 

performed a system-level study of the ICESat-2 architecture. 

“We looked at the avionics, the optical bench, and the 

accuracy they were trying to achieve under dynamic loads. 

It was a challenge,” he said.

“Communication, collaboration, cooperation, and 

compromise—when you bring all four together, there’s 

nothing you can’t do,” he added. “I’ve been able to see 

that happen within the NESC with problems I thought were 

impossible to solve. It amazes me.”

 

Concha Reid

Dr. Kusum Sahu

Dr. Pappu Murthy

Dwayne Morgan

72 GSFC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

George L.

Jackson

NESC Chief

Engineer

Robert S.

Jankovsky

NESC Chief

Engineer

56 GRC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16 Goddard Space Flight Center
12 13

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) and the White 

Sands Test Facility (WSTF) provided engineering 

analysis, design, and test expertise for the 

continuous operation of the International Space 

Station, development of the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle, and consultation for Commercial 

Crew Program (CCP) vehicles. The NESC Deputy 

Director for Safety; an NESC Principal Engineer; 

NASA Technical Fellows for Environmental 

Control/Life Support, Loads and Dynamics, and

Passive Thermal are resident at JSC. JSC personnel 

provided expertise and leadership to numerous 

assessments within the Agency relating to CCP 

entry, descent, and landing; Orion heatshield molded 

Avcoat block bond verification; frangible joint 

designs; and lithium-ion battery thermal runaway. 

The JSC NASA Technical Fellows joined with other 

Agency discipline leaders to strengthen technical 

community connections through joint sponsorship 

and participation in activities such as the Structures, Loads, 

and Mechanical Systems Young Professionals Forum; the 

Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop; and Capability 

Leadership Teams to help define the future of NASA 

technical disciplines. 

WSTF Chemistry has Agency-wide Impact

Mark McClure is WSTF’s Chemistry Lab Manager with 

26 years of experience in chemical/material testing and 

compatibility assessments. Mr. McClure has been called 

on to work a number of NESC assessments including 

Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs, where he 

tested pyrotechnic cords to measure the explosive; MultiPurpose Oxygen Generator Swelling, where he developed 

methods for sampling the device’s pressure and reaction 

gases; and Replacement Material Evaluation for Kalrez 1045 

Spacecraft Propulsion Component Seals, where he is testing 

the material properties of four different manufacturers’ 

perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) products for compatibility with 

monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide to find a 

suitable replacement for Dupont’s recently discontinued 

Kalrez 1045. FFKM products are used by multiple NASA 

projects, so Mr. McClure’s work will have an Agencywide impact. He believes involvement in these NESC 

assessments “will advance WSTF/JSC materials science 

and provide lasting systems and protocols for 

more detailed tests for qualifying new materials, 

and develop a deeper understanding of currently 

accepted materials.”

SLS Aerosciences Independent 

Consultation and Review

Fred Martin, from JSC’s Applied Aeroscience and 

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Branch, is 

currently serving as the team lead for the NESC’s 

Space Launch System (SLS) Aerosciences 

Independent Consultation and Review assessment 

team. Mr. Martin brings 36 years of experience 

solving fluid dynamics-related issues for the 

Space Shuttle and X-38, and the assessment team 

comprises 17 Agency experts and consultants 

in wind tunnel testing, CFD analysis, database 

creation, and structural loads. The team is 

reviewing the aerodynamic database substantiation reports 

written by the SLS Ascent Aerodynamic Team to ensure the 

proper balance of accuracy, conservatism, and uncertainty 

in the engineering testing, analysis, and database products.

Mr. Martin has “enjoyed the opportunity to work with many 

Agency experts who are the leaders in their technical field. 

Our discussions of the challenges involved in performing 

preflight predictions for the SLS launch vehicle have been 

rewarding for all of us.”

Hypervelocity Impact Testing of COPVs

Bruce “Alan” Davis is a Jacobs Technology engineer and 

is the Lead Test Engineer for the Hypervelocity Impact 

Technology (HVIT) Group in JSC’s Exploration Science 

Office. Mr. Davis brought 16+ years of hypervelocity 

impact (HVI) damage assessment experience to the 

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Pressure Vessel 

Failure Criteria assessment, where he has led the testing of 

multiple carbon overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) HVI 

tests being conducted at WSTF and assessed the resulting 

visible damage. Mr. Davis’ outstanding work is helping to 

increase the fidelity of risk assessment for spacecraft with 

COPVs. He reflected, “It’s always a pleasure to work with 

the NESC assessment team; it brings together some of the 

sharpest minds in our industry to find answers to the many 

challenges presented by the MMOD risk.”

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in 2016 has 

provided engineering support for 20 assessments 

and actively supports the NESC Technical Discipline 

Teams (TDTs). Several JPL staff have supported 

NASA Technical Fellows in their respective 

disciplines. The investigations supported include 

modeling and simulation; exploration systems 

development verification and validation; Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) guidance, navigation, 

and control (GNC) and environmental control and 

life support; several Commercial Crew Program 

assessments; and vibroacoustic environments. 

JPL leads the Composite Overwrapped Pressure 

Vessel Working Group and related assessments, 

the Robotic Spaceflight TDT, and the RAD750 

qualification testing effort. The NESC supported the 

Soil Moisture Active Passive Project in the study of 

the deployment of its mesh antenna, successfully 

completed on orbit. The NESC Chief Scientist and Discipline 

Deputy for Electrical Power, GNC, and Software are resident 

at JPL.

Strengthening GNC

Aron Wolf has spent much of his NASA career working at 

JPL in mission design and navigation. He designed orbital 

tour trajectories for the Galileo mission to Jupiter and the 

Cassini mission to Saturn, and served as navigation lead 

for the Stardust-NExT (New Exploration of Tempel-1) 

encounter with comet Tempel 1. Assisting both the 

Aerosciences and GNC Technical Discipline Teams, he 

has participated in several NESC assessments, including 

the Cassini Titan 70 Flyby Review. As Discipline Deputy for 

GNC, he supported the Orion MPCV GNC Fault Detection, 

Identification, and Recovery Independent Review where 

he analyzed and documented multiple failure scenarios; 

the Kepler Spacecraft Hybrid Attitude Control Concepts 

Evaluation assessment to determine ways to allow the 

space observatory to continue its science mission; and the 

Commercial Crew Program Avionics Architecture Review

assessment to evaluate the effects of avionics failures on 

vehicle controllability.

Mr. Wolf has led mission studies and technology development 

efforts in entry, descent, and landing (EDL) including the 

development of terrain-relative navigation for the Mars 2020 

mission. His work has been important in developing EDL 

system architectures and understanding requirements for 

sensors during the various EDL mission phases. 

He provided GNC and EDL technical expertise to 

the Commercial Crew Program Verification and 

Validation Integration and Mapping assessment. 

Mr. Wolf has brought his NESC experience to his 

study of the EDL architecture for robotic missions 

beyond Mars 2020, expanding his knowledge of 

the applicability of robotic mission work to future 

human missions. “It has definitely improved my 

understanding of NASA and how the Agency 

functions,” he said. “The NESC offers an interesting 

and unique viewpoint and a lot of variety in technical 

work. I’ve enjoyed that challenge.” 

Applying Model-Centric Engineering

Working in systems engineering at JPL, Kim Simpson 

has supported and led many assessments for the 

NESC. Most recently, she has been applying modelbased systems engineering (MBSE) to more accurately 

develop architectures, perform system engineering, and 

conduct analyses on the Commercial Crew Program 

Verification and Validation Integration assessment, and the 

Mapping and Review of Orion-European Service Module 

Interfaces assessment. Her focus has been on finding gaps 

and weaknesses in the interfaces of complex architectures 

related to human exploration such as NASA’s upcoming 

Exploration Mission-1 and -2. 

“My experience in how systems come together and 

understanding the complexities of integrating cross-program 

architectures has helped me lead these assessments and 

provide insight on what products to analyze and types of 

gaps to look for,” she said. 

Referring to her NESC assessment work, “We’ve built an 

expansive suite of capabilities using MBSE to analyze 

interfaces, command and telemetry flows, launch behaviors, 

and verification and validation of EDL events associated with 

returning commercial crew to Earth.” Ms. Simpson hopes 

to find opportunities to apply what she has learned at JPL. 

“There are a lot of similarities. I’d like to see if what we’ve 

developed is applicable to our missions here.” 

Ms. Simpson has enjoyed the opportunity to work with the 

NESC. “It’s an Agency organization that allows you to shed 

Center biases. It facilitates finding the right people and 

getting the work done at a technical level, regardless of what 

Center you’re from.”

61 JSC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

T. Scott West

NESC Chief

Engineer

R. Lloyd

Keith

NESC Chief

Engineer

104 JPL 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Johnson Space Center

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Aron Wolf

Mark McClure Fred Martin Alan Davis

Kimberly Simpson
14 15

The NESC was involved in numerous activities 

for programs at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) 

including Commercial Crew Program (CCP) frangible 

joint testing; CCP entry, descent, and landing 

modeling; and Ground Systems Development and 

Operations Program crew module landing and 

recovery loads analysis. Likewise, KSC provided 

expertise to 23 different NESC activities and 

Technical Discipline Teams in 2016. The NASA 

Technical Fellows for Electrical Power and Materials 

reside at KSC. KSC was engaged in a variety 

of NESC assessments including CCP frangible 

joint sensitivity testing; CCP electrical power 

systems review; Exploration Systems Development 

independent flight modeling; and nonlinear slosh 

damping analysis for launch vehicles. NESC also 

invested in two KSC physics and electronics 

laboratories to resolve Agency issues.

Factoring in the Human Component

Improving the interfaces between humans, their tools and 

equipment, tasks, and work environments is where Katrine 

Stelges excels. As part of the Test and Operations Support 

Contract at KSC, Ms. Stelges brought her human factors and 

industrial engineering expertise to several NESC projects 

including Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Avcoat 

Bond Verification and applying a state-of-the-art human 

factors analysis tool using motion capture and ergonomics. 

For a Ground Operations Human Factors Task Analysis, 

she evaluated access and mobility issues for ground crew 

personnel in pressurized protective suits on the crew access 

arm between the launch tower and the Orion MPCV. 

Ms. Stelges’ work can involve physical or virtual mockups; 

monitoring a task to determine space, visibility, or access 

issues; performing feasibility studies; or using motion 

capture technology to evaluate an activity. “We assess any 

concerns and then look for mitigation options, trying to 

implement improvements before those concerns become 

risks,” she said. This helps eliminate performance barriers 

and time delays, while improving safety, operability, and 

efficiency. 

Benefits of Early-Career Networking

Megan Yohpe is taking advantage of every learning 

opportunity that comes her way. As a structural 

analyst in KSC’s Engineering Analysis Branch, she 

has participated in the NESC Structures, Loads, and 

Mechanical Systems Young Professionals Forum 

(YPF) for the past 2 years. The YPF lets Ms. Yohpe 

showcase her work to a NASA-wide audience. 

In 2015, she presented Correlating Experimental 

and Finite Element Analysis on Areas of Stress 

Concentration. “You have an opportunity to present 

work you are passionate about and receive feedback 

from experts in the field,” said Ms. Yohpe. “It’s a 

great way to network and discuss with experts from 

all over the Agency who you wouldn‘t normally have 

the opportunity to meet.” 

She also works with the Structures and Loads 

and Dynamics Technical Discipline Teams, led

by NASA Technical Fellows. “Agency-level 

problems are intriguing, and I love seeing how KSC fits 

into the NASA vision.”

Analysis through Imagery

As an electrical and materials failure/image analyst at KSC, 

Larry Batterson specializes in advanced imagery analysis, 

infrared (IR) imaging, high-speed video, micro-focus x-ray, 

and photo documentation. During his work on the NESC 

assessment of a commercial partner’s electrical power 

system, he focused on avionics flight fuse and wire testing. 

“I learned a great deal about designing board-level test 

fixtures, modifying complex board assemblies for testing, 

and effective heat sinking of circuit protection components 

and their effect on fuse performance,” said Mr. Batterson. 

With more than 30 years of imaging and electrical failure 

testing experience, he was an integral part of the test 

set construction team, assisting with fabrication and 

instrumentation. Using IR and still photography, he recorded 

fuse runs and edited IR video of the fuse separation, 

documenting single point IR temperature measurements 

and linear temperature histogram plots of the fuse heat 

profiles. “Going through board design variations, test set 

changes, and the evolution of the NESC’s comprehensive 

test plan allowed me a 20,000-foot-view of how an advanced 

technology system like the commercial partner’s comes to 

fruition, moving from the theoretical to flight ready.” 

The Langley Research Center (LaRC) continues to 

support the NESC mission to address the Agency’s 

high risk programs and projects. LaRC engineers and 

scientists contributed wide-ranging technical expertise 

to lead and support multiple NESC assessments. 

The assessments reached across the Aeronautics 

Research, Exploration Systems, Human Exploration 

and Operations, Science, and the Space Technology 

Mission Directorates. LaRC is the host Center for the 

NESC Director’s Office, Principal Engineers Office, 

NESC Integration Office, and the Management and 

Technical Support Office. The NASA Technical Fellows 

for Aerosciences, Flight Mechanics, Nondestructive 

Evaluation, Sensors and Instrumentation, Software, 

and Structures reside at LaRC.

Understanding the Risk and

Reliability of EEE parts

Dr. Yuan Chen’s specialty is in electrical, electronic, and 

electromechanical (EEE) parts and reliability. One of her 

current efforts is in understanding the different approaches 

to using commercial parts in critical avionics applications. 

“It’s not just one single part,” said Dr. Chen, who works 

in the Electronic Systems Branch at LaRC. “We have to 

understand the parts technology, manufacturing process, 

how parts are selected, reviewed, approved and procured, 

how parts are used in missions, what environments they 

will see, their lifetime expectancy, and how they fit into the 

overall avionics architecture. We have to understand the 

whole picture so we can understand the risks.”

The NESC has requested Dr. Chen’s expertise on several 

assessments involving EEE parts and avionics. “As a part 

of these teams, either as technical lead or team member, 

I feel I can make my own contribution and also grow from 

both technical and leadership perspectives.”

Advancing Structural Design

Dr. Sotiris Kellas works in the LaRC Engineering Directorate 

in the Atmospheric Flight & Entry Systems Branch, where 

he specializes in the design, fabrication, and testing of 

composite structures. “I design passive landing systems, 

most of which are made of composites. We can choose 

how to combine the materials and get creative in designing 

lightweight energy absorbers for these systems,” he said. 

Dr. Sotiris served as the Test and Verification 

Lead for the NESC Composite Crew Module 

Pressure Vessel project. He also served as 

the test lead for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (MPCV) Thermal Protection System 

(TPS) carrier structure redesign and helped 

evaluate the effects of the carrier structure on 

the TPS as well as how TPS (honeycomb Avcoat) 

material property measurements were obtained.

Most recently he served on the NESC team 

for the MPCV Avcoat Study and the Bond 

Verification Plan for Orion’s Molded Avcoat 

Block Heatshield Design Team. The team is 

working with the commercial partner to develop 

verification methods for the block Avcoat 

architecture. “I feel fortunate to be part of these 

high profile projects,” said Dr. Kellas. “They are 

very unique, challenging, and exciting.” 

NDE Techniques Benefit

Multiple NESC Assessments

As part of the Nondestructive Evaluation Sciences (NDE) 

Branch at LaRC, Patricia Howell has used her thermography 

and x-ray expertise to assist the NESC in thermography 

inspections of the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge 

of the Space Shuttle’s wings, inspections of the NESC’s 

pathfinder composite crew module, and in analyzing 

infrared imagery of radiators aboard the International 

Space Station. More recently she participated in carboncarbon silicon carbide material characterization, helping 

to develop a certification path for the attitude control 

motor pintle and pintle guide for the launch abort system 

of the Orion MPCV. She is also assisting with the NESC’s 

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Pressure Vessel Failure 

Criteria assessment. 

Ms. Howell’s role involves analyzing and quickly compiling 

countless data, gathered from her NDE techniques, to 

discover the microscopic signals left by flaws or defects. 

NDE work allows her the “ability to affect safety and that’s 

rewarding,” she said. Working on the assessment teams 

also gives her insight into other technical disciplines.

“I get to see why our NDE data is so important and how it 

is helping them.”

Dr. Yuan Chen Dr. Sotiris Kellas Patricia Howell

Megan Yohpe

Katrine Stelges Larry Batterson

46 KSC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Stephen A. 

Minute 

NESC Chief

Engineer

Kennedy Space Center

207 LaRC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Paul W. 

Roberts

NESC Chief

Engineer

Langley Research Center
16 17

The Stennis Space Center (SSC) provided expert 

technical support to the NESC, including materials 

expertise to an oxygen purity Technical Interchange 

Meeting at KSC. SSC has members on several NESC 

Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs) including members 

on the Human Factors, Nondestructive Evaluation, 

and Systems Engineering TDTs. SSC enabled the 

open exchange of ideas and collaborative decision 

making by utilizing the unique locale, transportation 

capabilities, and cost effectiveness by hosting five 

TDT yearly face-to-face meetings at nearby Michoud 

Assembly Facility and SSC facilities. 

Transitioning to an MBSE Environment

As a technical data architect who ensures all 

engineering design data generated at SSC is gathered 

into one common location, Rebecca Deschamp is

very familiar with the development of collaborative 

engineering environments. Her work serves her well in her 

role as a member of the Systems Engineering TDT, where 

she is part of a small model-based system engineering 

(MBSE) pathfinder team. “We’re doing the up-front work 

to blaze the path for future teams who are operating and 

transitioning to an MBSE environment.”

Assigned to the Sounding Rocket Program Mission 

Shadowing Team, Ms. Deschamp and the team are 

focused on taking documents used at design review and 

modeling them in the systems engineering tool. “Our 

team has been focusing on creating model libraries so 

future sounding rocket teams may take our model and our 

libraries and use them as templates so they aren’t starting 

from scratch.”

The team has found several important areas where 

early conceptual models could provide benefit not only 

to the program office but also contractors and mission 

customers, she said.

“As everyone’s models have become more mature, 

we’re all beginning to see the value of common systems 

engineering libraries and glossaries, standardization, and 

reuse. We’ve had a chance to talk to the customer 

and the engineers and really get insight from them 

on what their issues are and address them in the 

model. So we have a good start on a model that 

can be re-used across the Agency.”

Network of Technical Experts

For about 6 years, Thomas Jacks has been 

a member of the Mechanical Systems TDT, 

which includes scientists and engineers who

specialize in mechanisms and tribology from 

each NASA Center as well as industry. Together 

and in small groups, they take on some of NASA’s 

toughest engineering problems in mechanical 

systems. “The team has performed numerous 

failure analyses that are models of engineering 

investigation,” said Mr. Jacks. Over the years, 

he has “been impressed with the thoroughness 

that goes into a proper engineering assessment, the 

need for patient rigor, and designing the solution to the 

problem at hand.” 

At SSC, Mr. Jacks is the Deputy Chief of the Mechanical 

Design and Analysis Branch, which performs design 

for rocket test facilities, special test equipment, special 

components, and cryogenic systems — all things geared 

for rocket propulsion tests. That expertise in propulsion 

testing operations at SSC guided his feedback to the TDT 

recently when he reviewed a propellant loading study 

involving a commercial partner. 

Working with the TDT offers a continuous learning 

experience, he said. “It’s very insightful to see what 

other Centers in the Agency are doing — the types of 

engineering problems they are encountering that are out 

of my bailiwick. And if I have a problem, even if it’s not 

related to mechanical systems, I have an entrée to that 

Center and within three phone calls, I can get help on any 

problem I need. It’s a very valuable network of technical 

experts to have.”

Linda Parker Rusty Parks, Marlon Holt, and Alex McCool Patrick McRight

In 2016, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) 

provided engineer, scientist, and technician support 

to over 25 NESC assessments and investigations. 

These activities involved the areas of exploration 

systems development, space operations and 

environmental effects, science, and crosscutting 

discipline activities. 

Some of the more significant efforts include: 

composite shell buckling, additive manufacturing, 

high temperature insulations, advanced chemical 

propulsion, modeling and simulation of complex 

launch vehicle/spacecraft interfaces, and human 

factors task analyses. The NASA Technical Fellows 

for Propulsion and Space Environments and 

the Discipline Deputies for the Human Factors, 

Nondestructive Evaluation, Propulsion, Nuclear 

Power and Propulsion, Software, and Space 

Environments Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs) 

are resident at MSFC. MSFC provided critical support to 

numerous NESC investigations and 20 of the 21 NESC TDTs 

with over 125 engineers and scientists. 

Space Environments TDT Support

Linda Parker is a space physicist with over 20 years of 

experience working on numerous NASA projects and 

programs including: the International Space Station, 

Chandra X-ray Observatory, James Webb Space Telescope 

(JWST), Deep Space Climate Observatory, Space Launch 

System (SLS), and the Commercial Crew Program.

Ms. Parker brings expertise in particle acceleration at 

shocks in the heliosphere, spacecraft charging, and space 

plasma environment definition to her TDT support. Her 

background includes space environments theory, modeling, 

data analysis, and particle instruments. Ms. Parker currently 

supports the NASA Technical Fellow for Space Environments 

as his Deputy for Space Weather and Spacecraft Charging 

and is serving as the technical lead for the JWST Space 

Environment Launch Constraints assessment. 

Propulsion TDT Support

Patrick McRight is a propulsion engineer with over 27 

years of experience with NASA. Formerly the branch chief 

for MSFC’s Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Branch and, 

more recently, the chief of the Liquid Propulsion Systems

Design and Integration Division, Mr. McRight began 

to serve in 2015 as a part-time Discipline Deputy 

for Propulsion, and a senior technical advisor for 

the Propulsion Systems Department. His NESC 

involvement ranged from developing rationale for 

NASA’s future propulsion facility needs to developing 

independent recommendations regarding the costs 

vs. benefits of nondestructive evaluation after proof 

tests. Mr. McRight has taken on special projects 

to energize the NASA propulsion community 

including: developing a quarterly newsletter, 

coordinating technical briefings for TDT meetings, 

and reinvigorating the propulsion community web 

page. Mr. McRight said that “working with the NESC 

has been enormously satisfying because the issues 

that come to us for evaluation are consistently 

challenging. Experiencing the NESC’s ability to tap 

the brightest minds across the community while 

helping to solve important problems is a reward in itself.”

Slosh Testing Team

Russel (Rusty) Parks has worked as a dynamic analysis 

and test engineer for over 27 years. His branch is primarily 

responsible for vibration, acoustic, and modal testing, 

but has expanded scope to support slosh testing almost 

a decade ago under the Constellation Program. In 2015, 

Mr. Parks was joined by Alex McCool and Marlon Holt to 

perform NESC-sponsored slosh testing for scaled SLS 

core stage and exploration upper stage propellant tanks. 

Mr. Parks, who joined NASA this year through the co-op 

program, commented that his NESC experience has been a 

“good building block for a young engineer. It isn’t hitting any 

important, expensive hardware with a hammer, and it isn’t in 

someone else’s building/lab where we have limited access 

or time. This allows for more of a learning experience.” 

Mr. Parks joined NASA as an electrical power engineer in 

2009, and moved to the Structural Dynamics Test Branch 

in 2015. Together, the slosh testing team is paving the way 

for the development of empirically based nonlinear slosh 

damping models to replace the traditional lower-fidelity, 

more-conservative linear damping models. This improved 

damping characterization is anticipated to have positive 

implications on the baffle designs and launch vehicle control 

performance within and outside of NASA.

Michael D. 

Smiles

NESC Chief

Engineer

18 SSC

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

125 MSFC 

employees 

supported 

NESC work

in FY16

Steven J. 

Gentz

NESC Chief

Engineer

Marshall Space Flight Center

Stennis Space Center

Rebecca Deschamp Thomas Jacks
18 19

NESC Academy Online

The NESC Academy Online is an innovative video library 

featuring informative lessons on topics relevant to current 

NASA issues and challenges. The NESC Academy presents 

live and on-demand content from researchers, engineers, 

and field experts in numerous disciplines. It delivers over 400 

hours of interviews, tutorials, lectures, and lessons learned 

in an engaging format that features side-by-side video and 

slides, powerful search capabilities, downloadable course 

materials, and more. Viewers can learn from NASA’s senior 

scientists and engineers as well as recognized discipline 

experts from industry and academia. In calendar year (CY) 

2016, more than 107 new video lessons were released 

with such varied topics as heating mechanisms of lithiumion batteries, model-based systems engineering, human 

factors considerations for flight, and possible future 

exploration of Mars’ moon, Phobos.

The NESC Academy offers the audience a virtual, selfpaced classroom experience based on a state-of-theart video player for education, which enables dual video 

streams for content, typically one for the presenter and 

another for presentation materials. Desktop and mobile 

devices are supported.

A popular feature of the NESC Academy is live technical 

webcasts provided as a service to the discipline 

communities, which are archived for later viewing. Viewers 

can send in questions to the presenter during the broadcasts 

for two-way interaction.

The NESC Academy videos have received more than 

50,000 views since inception, with more than 15,000 views 

in CY 2016, illustrating the popularity of this approach 

among NESC Academy users. The NESC Academy video 

catalog is available at nescacademy.nasa.gov.

NESC Knowledge Products

Capturing and preserving critical knowledge for the future

Top three viewed videos

1. Human Factors - How To 

Make the Most of Your Human:

Design Considerations for

Single Pilot Operations

2. Systems Engineering - ModelCentric Engineering, Part 1: 

Introduction to Model-Based 

Systems Engineering

3. Life Support/Active Thermal 

- EVA Development and 

Verification Testing at NASA’s 

Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory

Most Viewed Videos by Discipline for CY 2016

Discipline Video

Assessments Focusing on the Factor, Shell Buckling

Knockdown Factor Past to Present

Aerosciences Ares Launch Vehicle Transonic Buffet

Avionics Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC): Antennas - Lecture, Part 1

Electrical Power High Voltage Engineering Techniques for Space Applications: 

Part 1, Background Engineering Discussion

Flight Mechanics Standard Check-Cases for Six-Degree-of-Freedom

Flight Vehicle Simulations

GNC Autonomous Deep Space Navigation

Human Factors How To Make the Most of Your Human:

Design Considerations for Single Pilot Operations (Webcast)

Life Support/ EVA Development and Verification Testing at

Environmental Control NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory

Loads & Dynamics Shock & Vibration: 01. Natural Frequencies, Part 1

Materials Apollo 13 Pressure Vessel Failure

Mechanical Systems An Overview of Fastener Requirements

in the new NASA-STD-5020

NDE Introduction to Probability of Detection (POD) for

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)

Passive Thermal Rationale for Selected MIL-STD-1540E Thermal Test Requirements

Propulsion Saturn Launch Vehicles: Engine Restart and Propellant

Control in Zero-g

Software Introduction to Software Engineering 01: Course Introduction

Structures Buckling, Shells, Knockdown Factors, and Validation Testing

Systems Engineering Model-Centric Engineering, Part 1: Introduction to

Model-Based Systems Engineering

Other Rapid Development Projects

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 offers 

a wide variety of knowledge products that can be readily accessed from technical assessments reports to technical 

bulletins to video libraries.

Assessment Engineering Reports

The detailed engineering and analyses available as

Technical Memorandums (TM) ntrs.nasa.gov

Technical Bulletins

Critical knowledge captured from NESC assessments in the form of 

new engineering information or best practices in a one-page format 

Lessons Learned

Captured knowledge or understanding gained on NESC

assessments that would benefit the work of others

Scholarly Papers and Conference Proceedings

Written by members of the NESC and NESC Technical Discipline Team (TDT) 

to capture and convey new knowledge learned on NESC assessments

NESC Technical Update

Annual summary of NESC assessment activities that includes critical

knowledge articles authored by the NASA Technical Fellows

and NESC TDT members 

LLIS

Agency-Level Lessons 

Learned Information

System (LLIS)

llis.nasa.gov

NESC Academy Online

Video library of 500+ informative

lessons relevant to current NASA

issues and challenges

nescacademy.nasa.gov

NESC

Assessments 

and Support 

Activities

nesc.nasa.gov

NESC Technical Discipline Teams

Led by NASA Technical Fellows, provide the primary workforce

for NESC assessments and support activities, and includes

communities of practice nen.nasa.gov
20 21

� ISS Solar Boom Array Thermal Issues

� Human Spaceflight-1 Mishap Recurring

Factor Study

� Minimum Wear Life for the ISS Pump

Control Valve Package Rotor Bearing

System

� Ground Testing to Assess the ISS

Ultrasonic Leak Location Concept

� Multi-Purpose Oxygen Generators Swelling 

� ISS/Extravehicular Activity Lithium-Ion

Battery Thermal Runaway Severity

Reduction Measures

� SpaceX Failure Investigation Support 

� Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel

Liner Inspection Capability

� Rapid Slews for Lunar Reconnaissance

Orbiter

� Best Practices for Organizational Resilience

in the ISS Program

� Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer Wide

Range Pump Qualification Model Failure

Review Board 

� Extravehicular Mobility Unit Water Pump

Redesign

� Hubble Space Telescope Gyro 1 & Gyro 2

Elevated Motor Current Investigation

� Simplified Aid for Extravehicular Activity

Rescue Safety Battery 

� ISS Plasma Interaction Model Independent

Review

� NASA Docking System Non-Compliance

Review

� Center Burst Cracks Present on Bearing

Balls in NASA Mechanisms

� Express Logistics Carrier Reverse Capacitor

Follow-on Testing

� Chandra X-Ray Observatory Advanced

Composition Explorer Real-Time Data

Support

ISS Columbus Module Moderate Temperature IFHX Temperature Response Test 

In December 2013, a valve failure in the external thermal 

control loop on the International Space Station (ISS) 

resulted in conditions that might have damaged the 

Columbus module interface heat exchanger (IFHX). 

The heat exchanger allows the transfer of heat from a 

water loop, bringing heat from the interior of the ISS, to 

an ammonia loop, which rejects heat into space via the 

radiators. During the anomaly, the NESC was asked to 

assist with analysis to determine if the IFHX was damaged. 

The NESC remained engaged with the ISS Program until 

the system was operating nominally. During mission 

support activities and the follow-on close call investigation, 

concerns that were raised led to improved IFHX analysis 

capabilities, which were needed due to the great number of 

similar heat exchangers used on board the ISS. The NESC 

conducted thermal response testing to gather data suitable 

for anchoring thermal response models. This work was 

performed by JSC and LaRC.

Carbon Fiber Strand Tensile Failure Dynamic 

Event Characterization

Composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) are 

essential elements of most modern spacecraft. The NESC 

identified the need to incrementally improve the database 

regarding COPV mechanics and physics of failure by 

pulling carbon fiber strands to failure and recording and 

characterizing the process with high-speed photography 

and photogrammetry. This effort provided failure-related 

information that is additional and complementary to 

data being gathered from test articles under the NESC 

assessment COPV Stress Rupture Reliability and NASA 

Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group activities.

This work was performed by LaRC, MSFC, and JPL. 

NASA/TM-2016-219188

Priority 1: Completed Work Priority 2: Completed Work

Human Vibration Modeling for Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Coupled Loads Analysis

The use of impact test dummies and their surrogate finite 

element (FE) models are important tools used to investigate 

human response and occupant protection measures to 

adverse environments. The advantage of high-fidelity FE 

models is the ability to more quickly analyze environments 

and the benefits of occupant protection approaches prior 

to conducting tests with full-size anthropomorphic test 

dummies. The NESC identified the need to develop a 

more accurate FE model of a representative crew member 

to include a more correct distribution of a human’s mass 

and vibration response. The scope of the two-phased 

assessment included developing a higher fidelity FE model 

for use in coupled structural loads assessments, providing 

a more realistic distribution of human mass and vibration 

response, and developing a low-level human subject 

vibration test plan. This work was performed by LaRC, 

JSC, and GRC. NASA/TM-2016-219208

Human vibration FE model (left), anthro-pomorphic test dummy FE model 

(center), and representative seat placement for coupled loads analysis (right).

Priority 1: In Progress

NESC Priority 1: Technical support of projects in the flight phase NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase

Columbus module 

integrated into 

the ISS.

Failure of a carbon strand test specimen captured by high-speed video.
22 23

Review of MPCV Program CM-ESA Service Module Interfaces

Interfaces let major system components exchange electrical 

signals and information in an agreed upon manner and 

enable independent development, provided component 

developers adhere to the interface requirements. The 

MPCV Program Chief Engineer requested that the NESC 

perform an assessment of the MPCV Program crew 

module (CM)-European Space Agency Service Module 

(ESM) interfaces including the government-furnished 

equipment embedded in the ESM to ensure there are no 

gaps or miscommunications regarding exchanges across 

the interface. The assessment focused on analyzing the 

CM-ESM interface requirements document using a modelbased systems engineering approach to check for technical 

gaps and inconsistencies that may have existed in the 

design documentation but have been difficult to uncover 

via the document-based review process applied to date. 

This work was performed by GSFC, MSFC, JPL, and GRC. 

NASA/TM-2016-219212 

Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) was 

conducted in December 2014 and was 

the first entry flight test for the Orion 

crew module. A flight test objective was 

to measure heatshield surface temperatures during peak heating. JSC personnel 

requested NESC support in executing a 

remote imaging campaign to collect EFT-1 

aerothermal environment data during entry. 

The NESC effort included a flight test data 

collection effort and a data processing 

phase that converted infrared imaging data 

into useful temperature data. This work was 

performed by LaRC. 

Single-Board Computer Panels

Satellites rely on the volume and mass savings provided 

by single-board computers (SBCs). The GSFC Electrical 

Engineering Division requested that the NESC assess 

the latest version of SBC printed circuit board (PCB) 

panels being considered by multiple contractors for use 

on NASA spaceflight missions. GSFC performed earlier 

investigations into this SBC reliability. In Phase I of this 

two-phase assessment, the NESC team was tasked to 

determine if manufacturer changes to the SBC PCBs were 

sufficient to allow consideration of this product for future 

flight use. In Phase II, the NESC evaluated changes to 

the SBCs incorporated by the manufacturer based on 

recommendations from the Phase I study, and performed 

tests and reviewed manufacturer test data to help identify 

problems early in the manufacturing process to give NASA 

greater confidence about the SBC reliability. This work was 

performed by LaRC and GSFC. NASA/TM-2016-219187

Orion MPCV Program Window Wavefront

Measurement Capability Development

To verify that uninstalled flight window assemblies for 

the Orion MPCV have minimal distortion, KSC’s Applied 

Physics Laboratory partnered with the NESC in the 

development of a wavefront measurement capability 

at KSC in close proximity to the MPCV crew module 

assembly site. The measurement required the construction 

of an optical interferometer-based wavefront measurement 

system consisting of an off-the-shelf interferometer and a 

custom scanning system. Training, testing, and analysis 

was required to ensure the system could meet the new 

flight requirement. This work was performed by LaRC, 

KSC, and JSC. NASA/TM-2016-219207

Many NASA satellites rely on single-board computers.

Heatshield infrared image Heatshield irradiance Heatshield surface temperature

Conversion from infrared pixel counts to heatshield temperature map.

Approximate 

stagnation 

point

Compression 

pad (1 of 6)

See: Measuring Window Flatness Using Optical Interferometry, Page 39

A model-based systems engineering approach was used to determine 

completeness of CM-ESM interfaces. Illustration of the Orion MPCV.

Priority 2: Completed Work continued

NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase

Wavefront measurements were used to characterize Orion 

CM window flatness.

EFT-1 flown heatshield with corresponding temperature map.

Remote Imaging of EFT-1 Entry Heating Risk Reduction

European 

Space 

Agency 

service 

module
24 25

ACM C/C-SiC Component Performance Testing Approach for Certification

The MPCV launch abort system (LAS) is designed to provide 

reliable crew safety over the launch trajectory to orbit in 

the event of a launch vehicle mishap. The Orion MPCV 

Chief Engineer requested that the NESC assist the LAS 

Project Office (LASO) in developing a path for certification 

of the attitude control motor (ACM) pintle and pintle guide. 

The recently completed Phase II carbon/carbon-silicon 

carbide (C/C-SiC) material characterization and modeling 

assessment recommended an empirical performance 

testing approach be pursued for ACM critical component 

certification. The NESC assisted the LASO in conducting 

a knowledge gap study, supporting the development of a 

risk mitigation plan, and hot-fire testing. The assessment’s 

scope included a go-forward strategy consultation with 

LASO and hot-fire testing. This work was performed by 

LaRC, JSC, and MSFC. 

Ground test of a full-scale ACM for the LAS 

(left). ACM seen operating during the Pad 

Abort-1 flight test.

Priority 2: Completed Work continued Priority 2: Completed Work

Stability of the SLS Flight Control System with 

Adaptive Augmentation

The newest and largest NASA launch vehicle ever built will 

include a modern flight control system. The Space Launch 

System (SLS) flight controls lead requested that the 

NESC assess the SLS adaptive augmenting control (AAC) 

algorithm’s stability and flight readiness, in partnership 

with the SLS Program, by providing a consolidated and 

comprehensive set of internal and external analyses in 

support of the rationale for flight readiness. The AAC 

modifies the total attitude control system response to 

provide the classical gain-scheduled control architecture 

with additional performance and robustness. Multiple 

analysis methods that specifically targeted the SLS AAC 

techniques were used to analyze stability and assess flight 

readiness, with each technique adding its own insights. 

This work was performed by LaRC and MSFC.

Modeling of Crawler-Transporter, Mobile Launcher, and Forcing Functions

When stacked on the mobile launcher (ML), the Orion 

MPCV and SLS vehicles will weigh in excess of 5.5 million 

pounds. And like other NASA launch vehicles before 

it, it will use the crawler-transporter (CT) to move the 

ML from the assembly building to the launch pad. The 

NESC identified the need to perform modeling and test 

correlation using ADAMS and NASTRAN to characterize 

both the dynamic response of the CT/ML and the forcing 

functions generated by the roller and tread interaction 

with the roadway and provide accurate modeling of the 

dynamic response of the integrated MPCV/SLS stack on 

the CT/ML during rollout to the launch pad. This work 

was performed by JSC, GSFC, JPL, LaRC, and KSC.

Artist illustration of NASA’s SLS launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft on the mobile launcher at Launch Pad 39B at KSC. 

The SLS will use the AAC algorithm in the vehicle’s flight control system.

Orion MPCV GNC/FDIR Independent Review

Fault detection, isolation, and recovery (FDIR) technology is 

becoming an important approach to incorporating resilience 

and robustness into space systems. The guidance, navigation, 

and control (GNC) FDIR system is part of the Orion MPCV 

onboard flight software. The NESC performed an independent 

technical review of the MPCV GNC FDIR system’s requirements 

flowdown process, the detailed design of individual algorithms, 

and plans for verification and validation testing. This work was 

performed by GSFC, LaRC, JPL, ARC, JSC, and GRC.

NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase
26 27

Continued next page

Investigation of uPSP and a Dynamic Loads Balance to Predict Launch 

Vehicle Buffet Environments

Aerodynamic loads due to unsteady flow 

are difficult to predict and model. Presently, 

buffet environment data for launch vehicles 

are acquired through wind tunnel testing of 

models using hundreds of unsteady pressure 

transducers. Even with this large number 

of sensors, this coverage is not sufficient 

to provide unsteady integrated loads on 

the vehicle, and the coarse spacing of the 

sensors results in buffet environments that 

are conservative in their prediction of buffet 

loads between the transducers. The NESC 

identified the need to investigate innovative 

test techniques for acquiring launch vehicle 

buffet data using a combination of unsteady 

pressure sensitive paint (uPSP) and a dynamic 

loads balance to investigate their potential to 

better predict vehicle buffet environments. 

The assessment’s scope included tests that 

demonstrated the ability of uPSP to measure 

buffet loads on a launch vehicle configuration 

and high spatial-density measurements to 

verify current processing techniques for 

computing buffet forcing functions. The work 

also verified computational fluid dynamics 

methods for computing time-accurate 

flow over a launch vehicle. This work was 

performed by LaRC, ARC, MSFC, and JSC. 

NASA/TM TBD. 

Priority 2: Completed Work continued Priority 2: Status Brief

Priority 2: In Progress

� Peer Review of the MPCV Aerodynamic/

Aerothermal Database Models and 

Methods

� LAS Risk Mitigation

� Exploration Systems Independent Modeling 

and Simulation

� SLS Aerosciences Independent 

Consultation and Review

� Independent Modeling and Simulation for 

Commercial Crew Program Entry, Descent, 

and Landing

� Evaluation/Validation of Range Safety LAST 

Distance Focusing Overpressure Model

� SLS RS-25 Nozzle Flow Transient 

Acoustics Design Load Specification 

Refinement

� Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Dummy 

Response for Proposed Orion Crew Impact 

Attenuation System

� Human Factors Review of Space Network 

Ground System Sustainment Project

� Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs

� Orion Tube Weld Digital Radiography

� MPCV Avcoat Study

� Stress Ruptures COPV

� Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group

� Effects of Humidity on Dry Film Lubricant 

Storage and Performance

� Commercial Crew Provider Electrical Power 

System Review

� Soil Moisture Active Passive Radar Boom 

Assembly Deployment Risk

� Independent Assessment of the Backshell 

Pressure Field for Entry, Descent, and 

Landing (Mars 2020)

� Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas ExperimentIII Interface Adapter Module Subsystem 

Anomaly

� Nonlinear Slosh Damping Analysis for 

Launch Vehicles

� Development of a Manned Vehicle Reentry 

Thermal Protection System Damage 

Assessment and Decision Plan

� Evaluation of Micrometeroid/Orbital Debris 

Risk Predictions with Available On-orbit 

Assets

� Risk Reduction of Orion GovernmentFurnished Environmental Control and Life 

Support System

� Infrared Laser Sensor Technology 

Readiness and Maturation

� SLS Vibroacoustics Plans and Analysis 

(Follow-On)

� Alternative Orion Small Cell Battery Design

� Application of System Identification to 

Parachute Modeling

� CCP Avionics Architecture Review

� Bond Verification Plan for Orion’s Molded 

Avcoat Block Heatshield Design

� Solar Probe Plus: FIELDS Whip Antenna

� Orion Titanium Hydrazine Tank Weld - 

Sustain Load Cracking Issue

� SLS Program Block I Booster Element 

Alternate Internal Insulation Risk Reduction

� Exploration Systems Development 

Verification and Validation Plan 

� Electrical, Electronic, Electromechanical 

Parts Testing for CCP 

� Independent Review of Additive 

Manufacturing Development Plans

� James Webb Space Telescope Space 

Environment Launch Constraints

� Independent Verification of Abort Loads

� Commercial Crew Aerodynamics Peer 

Review

� CCP Verification and Validation Integration 

and Mapping

� Static Software Analysis of the NASA 

Autonomous Flight Termination Software

� Support for Metallic Tank Diaphragm 

Fracture Test

� Exploration Mission-1 Thermal Protection 

System Flight Data Augmentation

MMAC Loads Analysis Methodology

Over the past 25 years, JPL has successfully developed 

and applied an effective and cost saving modal mass 

acceleration curve (MMAC) loads analysis methodology for 

computing launch loads for spacecraft structural design. 

In recent years, strong interest in this methodology has 

been shown, but the only available MMAC documentation 

was from 1989. JPL requested that the NESC develop a 

report that details MMAC loads analysis methodology for 

use by the Loads and Dynamics Community of Practice. 

This assessment generated a comprehensive report that 

details the theory, application, and example results for 

distribution to the wider community. Data processing, 

parameter sensitivity studies, and several case studies 

comparing MMAC-derived loads with those determined 

through coupled loads analysis are included. This work 

was performed by LaRC, JSC, and JPL.

Avcoat Block Bond Verification Support 

The NESC is providing technical support to the MPCV Program 

for the development of a molded Avcoat block heatshield to be 

used on the Orion CM for the Exploration Mission-1. Support 

includes nondestructive evaluation (NDE) strategies to assist in 

the verification of the critical bond between the ablative material 

and the heatshield carrier structure. Dr. Shant Kenderian, of The 

Aerospace Corporation, is pictured performing an inspection of 

the bonding condition between the Avcoat block and composite 

substrate. The NESC/Aerospace team developed a new ultrasonic 

NDE technique to evaluate the bond quality by passing the signal 

through the ablative blocks of material. 

See: Bond Quality Inspection for Orion Heatshield Blocks – Page 36

See: Unsteady Pressure Sensitive Paint for Measuring Launch Vehicle Dynamics Buffet – Page 38

NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase

Fluctuating pressure 

distributions at three 

consecutive time steps 

derived from uPSP.

Generic launch vehicle of Coe and Nute covered with pressure sensitive paint and pressure taps.

Prototype Orion CM heatshield.
28 29

Priority 2: In Progress

� NESC Peer Review of Exploration Systems 

Development Integrated Vehicle Modal 

Test, Model Correlation, Development 

Flight Instrumentation, and Flight Loads 

Readiness

� James Webb Space Telescope

Shaker Anomaly

� Fracture and Reliability of Propulsion/

Environmental Control and Life Support 

System Valve Bellows Seals

� CCP Review of NDE of SpaceX Additive 

Manufacturing

� Parts-level vs. Board-level and Box-level 

Screening Testing

� Proof Factor Assessment for COPVs

� Burst Factor Assessment for Pressure 

Vessels

� CCP Turbopump Cracking Concern

� CCP Systems Engineering and Integration 

Processes

� CCP Incremental Risk

� NISAR Micrometeroid/Orbital Debris 

Independent

� Ascent Abort-2 Independent Review Team

� Independent Verification of SLS Block 

1 Pre-Launch, Liftoff, and Ascent Gust 

Methodology and Loads

� B-2 SLS Green Run Handling Processes

� CCP Load and Go Assessment

� SLS Liftoff Environment Models

� JPL Battery Failure Study

� Independent Peer Review of GSDO/SLS 

System Umbilical Modeling

� Flight/Load Indicator Development and 

Usage

� Evaluation of Occupant Protection 

Requirement Verification Approach by CCP 

Partners

� Viscous Effects on Launch Vehicle Ground 

Wind Induced Oscillations

� ESM Major Propulsion Design Upgrades 

� Orion SIMULINK GNC Code Generation

� Potential Common-Cause Controller 

Issues: Plumbrook Mechanical Vibration 

Facility and GSFC James Webb Space 

Telescope Systems 

� Parachute Modeling Capability Gap 

Discussions

� Electrical Power for High-Voltage DC 

Battery Close-Call Investigation at AFRC

� Commercial Crew PCB Short-Circuit 

Destructive Testing (SpaceX PCB Test)

� Orion CM Well Deck Recovery Conditions 

Dynamics Analysis

� Commercial Crew Aerodynamics Boeing 

Peer Review

Priority 3: In Progress

� Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Proposal

� Rad750 Qualification Testing

� Implementation of JR-A Methodology into the NASGRO/FADD Codes

 to Improve Crack Instability Analysis 

� Micrometeroid/Orbital Debris Pressure Vessel Failure Criteria

� Development of Softgoods Design Factors of Safety 

� Additive Manufacturing Structural Integrity Initiative Project

 Oversight and Support

� CubeSat Radiation Environments and ISS Radiation Dose Data

� Replacement Material Evaluation for Kalrez 1045 Spacecraft

 Propulsion Component Seals

Priority 3: Status Brief

Another Milestone Reached in Shell Buckling Assessment 

Watching an 8-foot tall, 8-foot in diameter composite 

cylinder buckle under a near 900,000 pound load was 

the fun part. “Now the real work begins,” said Dr. Marc 

Schultz, who led the test on a subscale barrel meant to 

simulate a launch vehicle. The test is part of the NESC’s 

ongoing Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor assessment. 

Since 2007, the NESC has spearheaded the effort 

to determine if conservatisms applied to Apollo-era 

knockdown factors (KDFs), which account for the unknown 

variability in cylinder buckling loads, are still warranted with 

today’s advanced technology. New KDFs will help shave 

weight from today’s space structures, like NASA’s Space 

Launch System, allowing room for more payload — a 

necessity for trips to Mars and beyond. The assessment 

reached a milestone in 2013 as the NESC team’s new KDFs 

for metallic cylinders were used in the design of the SLS 

core stage. The use of these new factors resulted in a 5-8% 

mass savings.

This successful composite cylinder test, conducted in 

March 2016 at MSFC, marks yet another milestone, said 

Dr. Schultz. The work had begun about a year earlier with 

the final preparation of the Northrop Grumman-built test 

article. In the week before the final test to failure, the NESC 

team conducted a series of subcritical tests to exercise the 

cylinder to increasing loads. On the final day, the loads 

were steadily increased over the course of 2 to 3 hours 

until the cylinder finally buckled under the load. “The failure 

load was within 1% of our pretest prediction,” he said. “I 

thought it would be within a small percentage, but the fact 

that it was within 1% was pleasantly surprising.”

Since the test, the team has been poring through the 

data. “Most of our effort has been in putting the data 

in forms that we can document. There haven’t been a 

lot of surprises from the tests. We felt we had excellent 

agreement between the tests and the analysis so a lot of 

work is to verify that good agreement.” 

At the same time, the team is planning ahead. “We have 

four additional tests to do. Our focus is on the detailed 

design of those remaining test articles, all of which will be 

made at MSFC along with the tool on which the articles will 

be made.” 

“The test articles are all sandwich composites structures, 

which are composed of carbon fiber and epoxy faces 

separated by a lightweight, honeycomb core,” said

Dr. Schultz. The carbon fiber, which is strong and stiff, is 

embedded in an epoxy matrix. “The fibers are responsible 

for most of the strength and stiffness, and the matrix holds 

the fiber and transfers load between fibers as well,” he 

said. “Each of the remaining four test articles are meant to 

interrogate a different portion of the design space, so they 

will be of varying thickness and stiffness.” The plan is to 

test one article each year for the next 4 years. 

“The tests are really the big, visible part of the work, higher 

profile and more fun,” said Dr. Schultz, “but that’s not the 

end product. The underlying methodology behind the 

shell buckling project is to develop analysis-based design 

guidelines, and the tests are really just to anchor our 

analyses and make sure our methodology is valid,” he said. 

“Ultimately, we intend to modify the existing guidelines for 

this select class of sandwich composites and cylinders.” 

Continued from previous page

NESC Priority 2: Technical support of projects in the design phase

NESC Priority 3: Known problems not being addressed by any project

Sector views of failed composite shell.
30 31

Dealing with Software Complexity

Static program analysis is a critical part of software 

assurance and is performed to discover specific types 

of coding defects (commonly referred to as bugs) and 

security issues without actually executing the program. 

Numerous commercial and open source tools have been 

developed to automate manual static analysis, a significant 

improvement over manual code inspections, which were 

limited to about 300 lines of code per inspector per day. 

These manual inspections are impractical for programs like 

the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, for example, which 

incorporates more than two million lines of source code.

Automated open source code checkers use numerous 

heuristics to inspect the code for issues of coding 

standard violations, variable assignments, divide by zero 

possibilities, questionable syntax, consistency issues, 

complexity measures, unchecked input values, and 

numerous other well-known defects that historically have 

caused failures. The checkers can report defects that 

may impact code maintenance or defects that produce 

security flaws. The National Security Agency maintains a 

suite of code (Juliette Test Suite) that includes examples of 

historical errors. When the Juliette Test Suite is analyzed 

by a static analysis tool, the results indicate how effective 

the tool is at detecting these historical errors.

Applying Static Code Analysis for Improved 

Software Assurance

“The NESC was requested to perform a static code 

analysis of safety-critical software used to automate key 

aspects of launch vehicle range safety,” said Michael 

Aguilar, NASA Technical Fellow for Software. 

“We formed a multi-Center team that included key 

personnel from NASA’s Independent Verification and 

Validation (IV&V) Facility, ARC, and JPL to initiate a static 

code analysis of the NASA Autonomous Flight Termination 

System (AFTS). Our objective was to provide extensive 

implementation analysis of the source code and related 

AFTS support tools.”

The NESC team performed an initial static analysis of the 

AFTS code in February 2016 that included 10 automated 

analysis tools (CLANG, Coverity, Codesonar, CppCheck, 

Fortify, Polyspace, Semmle, Understand, IKOS, and 

SeaHorn). Some AFTS operations support tools, written 

in ADA, were also analyzed.

“When static analysis tools are run, we find they have very 

little overlap. They find and miss different defects. Running 

several tools allows for better results,” Mr. Aguilar said.

Improving Access to Static Analysis Tools

During the assessment, the NESC team investigated the 

use of a Software Assurance Market Place (SWAMP*), a 

portal that enables software developers and researchers 

to access multiple tools to perform static code analysis. 

“The bare-bones SWAMP uses free and open source 

tools. Comparing the tools, we found a combined set of 

free and open source outputs from several tools produced 

very good results,” Mr. Aguilar said. Key to the usage of 

static analyzers is identifying a core set of important 

defects that affect both operation and security—a “must 

fix” set of defects that could become a future software 

implementation standard. 

Leveraging this assessment experience, the NASA IV&V 

Facility is currently developing a NASA SWAMP that 

would allow software projects access to analyze source 

code Agency-wide, behind the NASA firewall. “We plan 

on releasing SWAMP configured with these free and open 

source tools. SWAMP can be reconfigured to include 

commercial tools the project has licenses for,” Mr. Aguilar 

stated. 

 “We would like to implement two flavors. The first would 

be “SWAMP-in-a-Box” that installs on the software 

developers infrastructure to enable developers to access 

the static code tools that are included with the SWAMP. 

We also envision a NASA SWAMP portal, potentially 

hosted on the NASA Engineering Network, which 

would be accessible to all NASA code developers. By 

implementing an Agency-wide access to static analysis, 

many more NASA software projects will be able to run 

static analysis on their developed source code.”

* The SWAMP concept is the result of a Broad Agency Announcement 

from Department of Homeland Security, as implemented by several 

universities and industry.

Improving Software Assurance - the NASA SWAMP

Priority 4: In Progress

NESC Technical Bulletin 16-01: Buckling Knockdown Factors for

Composite Cylinders

It took decades to figure out the complex buckling behavior of metallic cylindrical 

launch vehicle structures and the KDFs that account for the unknown variability in the 

geometry, loading, and material imperfections. The KDFs, established by Apollo-era 

engineers, are still in use today by NASA and by industry world-wide, as captured in 

NASA SP-8007 Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders from 1968. Developed with 

conservatisms warranted by the technology of the time, these KDFs are likely adding 

unnecessary weight to today’s modern aerospace structures. That was the catalyst 

behind Dr. Mark Hilburger’s NESC-sponsored proposal to develop and implement 

updated shell buckling KDFs, now in use by the SLS Program. 

Designers of composite cylinders, however, still turn to SP-8007, often using KDFs for 

which the technical justification is unclear. As a result, Dr. Marc Schultz, working with 

Dr. Hilburger, is investigating KDFs for modern composite cylinders. Their work has 

led to the development of this Technical Bulletin, which emphasizes that composite 

cylinders are outside the scope of SP-8007 and why caution must be taken when 

using the universal KDF in composite designs. 

More NESC Technical Bulletins can be found at nesc.nasa.gov

NESC Priority 4:

Work to avoid potential future problems

NESC Priority 5:

Work to improve a system

� Peregrine Sounding Rocket Redesign

� Additive Manufactured Fuel Turbopump Disassembly/Inspection

 and Post-Test Data Evaluation

� Fluid Structure Interaction in Prediction of Parachute Performance

� Space Weather Action Plan Extreme Surface/Internal Charging

 Environment Benchmarks

� Peer Review on Wind Induced Oscillation

� Empirical Launch Vehicle Explosion Model Evaluation

� Fracture Control Standard and Handbook

� Orion Alternate Heatshield Study

� Fast Coupled Loads Analysis via Norton-Thevenin Receptance

 Coupling 

� Improved Design and Optimization of Complex Trajectories

Priority 5: In Progress

C/C++: Clang Static

Analyzer, CppCheck,

GCC, Parasoft C/C++test

Java: Checkstyle, error-prone,

FindBugs with Find Security Bugs, 

Parasoft Jtest, PMD

Python: Bandit, 

Flake8, Pylint Android: Lint

Ruby: Reek, RuboCop, 

ruby-lint, Dawn, Brakeman

 Report viewer

Java source, Java bytecode, C/C++, Python, Ruby on Rails, Android Mobile Code

Upload

Defect report 

generation

NESC Priority 3: Known problems not being addressed by any project
32 33

Arc damage in laboratory tests of the chromic acid anodized thermal 

control coating covering ISS orbital debris shields. 

ESA EURECA satellite solar array sustained arc damage.

satellites that measure charged particles, such as the 

Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, which employs 

several satellites to study the Earth’s magnetosphere. 

Even a small charge on the spacecraft can interfere with 

the satellites’ detection abilities of low energy “thermal” 

plasma. Active charge control systems are frequently 

employed by these kinds of science missions to suppress 

charging during times when critical measurements are to 

be made.

Mitigating the Hazard

In his role as the NASA Technical Fellow for Space 

Environments, Dr. Minow has assembled teams to work 

on NESC assessments to help mitigate spacecraft 

charging threats to NASA missions. For example, 

the JWST spacecraft and telescope systems are well 

designed and well equipped for its stay in orbit about 

the Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 (L2) about 1.5 million 

kilometers from Earth. However, mission risks can be 

reduced by avoiding exposure to extreme solar flare 

particles and severe charging events during transit of 

the Earth’s radiation belts in the hours right after launch. 

He and the NESC team will help the JWST Program 

develop and assess the effectiveness of proposed 

launch constraints designed to protect the spacecraft 

during the first three quarters of a day on its month-long

 journey to L2.

“Charging has always been a problem,” said Dr. Minow, 

for as long as NASA and other space programs have 

been sending vehicles into space. “There were a lot of 

charging related anomalies in the 70s and 80s, but the 

number is dropping, because the more we understand it, 

the better we can build satellites to operate successfully,” 

he said. “Every time there is a failure due to charging, we 

figure it out to make sure it doesn’t happen again. On 

average, the failures per decade is going down, which is 

good. It means we understand what is happening and 

spacecraft designers are following good design practices 

that mitigate charging.” 

Dr. Minow said, “The best solution to mitigating charging 

hazards is good design. Just turning off the sensitive 

systems to avoid geomagnetic storms isn’t practical for 

most satellites. Good material selection is important. If 

we build satellites for geostationary orbit with conductive 

coatings on the outside, the arc will go out into 

space. Differential charging is the worst because arcs 

originating in one location on a spacecraft can damage 

systems on another part of the spacecraft. Fortunately, 

design techniques to minimize the amount of differential 

charging are well understood.” Along with good design 

is testing, particularly in environments that expose the 

spacecraft components to arcing. And more design and 

testing is being done with computer modeling, he notes. 

“We can simulate the charge build up and variations in 

voltage across the vehicle. We can see the motion of 

the particles. A combination of both analytical work and 

testing yields the best satellite design,” he said. 

The study of space environments has kept Dr. Minow 

captivated for many years. “It is really interesting—the 

interaction of spacecraft with the space environment. It’s 

a mix of fundamental physics and science, with a really 

important application,” he said. “It’s a nice combination 

of basic and applied science.” 

I

n April 2010, the Galaxy 15 telecommunications satellite 

was set adrift, wandering away from its assigned 

place in geosynchronous orbit. Ground controllers had 

lost contact with the spacecraft and were powerless to 

upload the commands it needed for executing station 

keeping maneuvers. As a result, the satellite began an 

uncontrolled drift in longitude, with the threat of getting 

in the way of other satellites, and potentially interfering 

with their transmissions. This uncontrolled drifting went 

on for months. 

Reports in the scientific literature and space technology 

trade journals suggested Galaxy 15 was a victim of 

spacecraft charging. Hot electrons roaming the outer 

radiation belt had pelted the satellite, causing a negative 

charge to build on its surface—a charging event. And 

much like walking across a carpet and then touching 

a door knob, an electrostatic discharge ensued that 

knocked out its communications systems. It could no 

longer receive radio contact from its owner, Intelsat. It 

took 8 months to reestablish contact and successfully 

reposition the satellite in its desired orbit. 

“Luckily for Galaxy 15, it wasn’t a loss of mission,” said 

Dr. Joseph Minow, NASA Technical Fellow for Space 

Environments. “They were able to establish a work 

around to recover use of the satellite.” Other satellites 

have not been so lucky. The Advanced Earth Observing 

Satellite 2 (ADEOS-II) in a high inclination low Earth orbit 

lost its power system in October 2003 and was never 

recovered. Engineering teams investigating the failure 

identified charging by high energy auroral electrons 

followed by an electrostatic discharge between the 

primary power cables as the likely cause of the power 

system damage. “The mission was a total loss. In 

geostationary orbit, there are a lot of hot electrons and 

during geomagnetic storms they build up. It’s a classic 

charging environment. Auroral charging is a similar 

problem, with hot electrons generated in the electric field 

structures above the Earth’s auroral zone that produce 

the northern and southern lights. Satellite designers 

have had to deal with these problems for years,” he said. 

“Space is an interesting place. You tend to think of it 

as a big, empty void,” said Dr. Minow, who has worked 

to characterize space environments for space system 

design and operations for many NASA programs 

including the Space Shuttle, International Space Station, 

and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). But while 

space is a vacuum, it is far from empty, he explains. “For 

spacecraft operating in a space environment, hazards 

lurk everywhere. And with the exception of meteoroids 

and orbital debris, most of those hazards are the product 

of a high energy charged particle radiation environment 

that are not even visible to the naked eye. And given 

that environment, spacecraft charging is inevitable,” said

Dr. Minow. “Every spacecraft charges. It’s just a question 

of whether it has a detrimental impact on the spacecraft 

or not.”

A Hazard for Spacecraft

“The hazards caused by spacecraft charging are varied,” 

said Dr. Minow. If a charge builds up that is too big for 

the spacecraft’s material to hold, discharge arcs, which 

are essentially strong electrical currents, will occur. And 

depending on where those arcs go, they can damage 

electronic components, destroy sensors, or damage 

important materials such as thermal control coatings. 

“They can also show up in electrical systems as phantom 

commands,” he said. The arcs can spoof the attitude 

control system, for example, causing attitude changes 

or spin anomalies. The arcs also emit electromagnetic 

radiation and cause interference and noise that can 

hamper both incoming and outgoing command and 

control as well as science data signals. 

“Charging can have big impacts on solar arrays and 

photovoltaic power systems,” added Dr. Minow. “You 

can get arcing between solar cells on the solar array. 

Currents can get bigger and bigger, which sustains the 

arcing, which can destroy the entire solar array. There 

have been cases where satellites have lost major parts 

of or all of their power systems. And that’s catastrophic. 

You can completely lose the mission.”

Even seemingly benign charging that does not affect the 

spacecraft itself can have a major impact on science 

ESA

NASA/T. Schneider

Understanding the Potential Dangers of

Spacecraft Charging
34 35

There is an unprecedented level 

of piloted spacecraft system 

development going on at NASA and 

with the Agency’s Commercial Crew 

Program (CCP) industry partners. The 

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is 

moving toward its Exploration Mission 

-1 flight in 2018, while both Boeing and 

SpaceX are developing the CTS-100 

and Dragon 2 spacecraft, respectively. 

This new generation of piloted 

spacecraft has resparked an interest 

in piloted spacecraft handling qualities 

- “those qualities or characteristics of 

an aircraft that govern the ease and 

precision with which a pilot is able to 

perform the tasks required in support 

of an aircraft role” (see reference 1). 

These same qualities apply to manual 

flight operations (i.e., “piloting”) of 

spacecraft. The term “Spacecraft 

Handling Qualities” (SHaQ) captures 

the multi-discipline aspects of 

analyzing and characterizing the ease 

and precision with which a spacecraft 

pilot can perform challenging functions 

such as proximity operations, docking, 

and landing. A lack of sufficient 

understanding of SHaQ can lead to 

increased crew training requirements 

increased pilot in-flight mental 

workload, undesirable flight control 

system interactions, and an inability to 

perform the mission/task. 

Unsafe, high-risk vehicle operations 

can result from a lack of good SHaQ 

and/or the inadequate application of 

human factors engineering practices. 

In extreme cases, it can lead to a 

loss of crew, as seen in a recent 

NESC independent analysis of a fatal 

X-15 accident in 1967. Incremental 

instrument panel changes such as 

the addition or moving of switches 

and indicators eventually left all three 

X-15 aircraft with different instrument 

panels. In addition, each X-15 vehicle 

had slightly different emergency 

procedures. On the day of the accident, 

an additional modification was made to 

support a specific science objective, 

which led to a lack of mode indication 

on a critical flight instrument. This 

resulted in increased pilot workload 

and confusion, which the NESC 

concluded was a primary contributing 

factor to the accident. Particularly in 

times of high stress, highly trained 

pilots rely on consistent, well-learned 

interfaces and procedures that give 

them an unimpeded ability to maintain 

safe flight control of the vehicle.

While guidance, navigation, and 

control (GNC) technology trends are 

moving toward on-board autonomous 

systems, the expectation is that crewed 

spacecraft will always have some form 

of manual control available to pilot(s). 

GNC Perspectives on Piloted Spacecraft

References: [1] Cooper, G.E. and Harper, Jr., R.P.: The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft 

Handling Qualities, NASA TN D-5153, April 1969. [2] Randall E. Bailey, E. Bruce Jackson, Karl D. 

Bilimoria, Eric R. Mueller, Chad R. Frost, and Thomas S. Alderete: Cooper-Harper Experience Report 

for Spacecraft Handling Qualities Applications, NASA/TM-2009-215767, June 2009.

As in the past, striking a balance 

between performing tasks manually 

versus autonomously will likely be a 

topic of on-going debate over human 

versus automation. The study of SHaQ 

goes well beyond GNC stability and 

control analysis. The coupled “pilot/

vehicle” dynamic system must be 

fully understood. SHaQ is a systemlevel problem requiring a balanced, 

integrated GNC-Human Factors 

engineering solution. Provisions for 

understanding, accommodating, and

verifying handling qualities need 

to be incorporated directly into the 

spacecraft flight control system’s 

design and not considered as an 

afterthought. This will be a challenge 

for the GNC community because 

currently there are no established 

SHaQ design standards.

SHaQ requirements need to be an 

integral element of the GNC systems 

engineering process for a piloted 

spacecraft. One cannot simply wait 

until a spacecraft flight control system 

is designed to “paint on” handling 

qualities. The spacecraft GNC team 

must balance analysis of automated 

flight control modes/tasks with indepth examination and testing of 

allowable and appropriate pilot 

inputs, based on offline pilot models 

and human-in-the-loop simulations.

A variety of testbeds are needed to 

verify satisfactory SHaQ characteristics as well as to ensure crews 

“train as they will fly,” especially for 

complex challenging GNC-related 

tasks such as docking and landing. 

These SHaQ testbeds typically 

include fixed-base, motion, and flying 

simulators. 

SHaQ was an active research area 

under the Constellation Program from 

2007 to 2010, during which a NASA 

report was written, which reviews, 

documents, and captured SHaQ 

experiences, best practices, and 

lessons-learned from previous United 

States spacecraft developments (see 

reference 2) to guide current and future 

SHaQ research and development. 

But research declined once the 

Constellation Program ended, and 

there is no broadly applicable research 

on SHaQ design standards being 

done today at NASA. SHaQ standards 

development will be critically needed 

for future NASA human exploration 

missions, where pilots will be tasked 

with performing demanding docking 

and landing maneuvers. To revitalize 

SHaQ to again be a broad research 

area, the first and most important 

step would be to develop and define 

implementable design standards for 

spacecraft handling qualities.

 Coupling

 Nominal/off-nominal 

control authority

 GNC fault

management/

failure modes

 Vehicle performance 

requirements

• Trajectories

 Attitude determination 

sensors

 Phase plane thruster 

control laws

 Thruster placement 

and geometry

 Situation 

displays

 Human performance 

capabilities

and limits

 Training

requirements

 Command input

devices

 Operational 

task analysis

 Command

sensitivity

 Human-machine

function allocation
36 37

Dr. Raju has seen similar issues with 3D modeling, with 3D 

mesh models currently more common than plate or shell 

models. “A 3D model has its own difficulties,” he said. 

Computer-aided design packages treat all geometry as 3D, 

he notes in the paper. Engineering judgment is necessary 

to extract representative planes out of the 3D model so 

that accurate shell models can be built. Lacking those 

judgment skills, early-career engineers are relying on the 

automesh button, which may generate large numbers of 

solid elements, making it more difficult to interpret results 

for bending, transverse shear, and other quantities.

And when it comes to bolts and bolt modeling, “There are 

numerous ways you can model bolts,” said Dr. Raju. “And 

any way you do it has its own pitfalls. So you have to know 

what you are doing.” For example, analysts are simply 

smearing the thickness of the fastened parts together and 

ignoring the discrete bolts; introducing discrete constraints 

or a beam element at every fastener location and ignoring 

features of the bolt; and including the fastener as one or more 

beams to simulate the bolt shank with sets of constraints 

to simulate the bolt head and nut. “Most analysts appear 

to be unaware of all of these pitfalls in bolt modeling and 

lack the knowledge of how a preloaded bolted joint works.”

The paper highlights many more examples of these trends 

and provides guidelines, suggestions, and tricks of the 

trade specifically aimed at analysts, senior engineers, and 

educators. 

Reversing the trend

“The technology is moving at an astonishing rate,” said 

Dr. Raju, of the pace at which hardware and software is 

changing and improving. As for the engineers just starting 

their careers, computers are second nature for them, “but 

they don’t always know theory,” he said. “And they don’t 

always have time to learn everything. That’s why they 

need mentorship with senior engineers.” It’s one of the 

recommendations Dr. Raju and the authors direct toward 

senior engineers and educators as a way to help reverse this 

trend. “If they can see you in action, they will understand,” 

he said. “They can ask you questions.” (See Sidebar: 

Recommendations for Analysts and Senior Engineers).

For the engineers and analysts, the authors note that 

fundamental core engineering courses are key. And they 

suggest studying the software developers’ manuals. “The 

software developers who actually make the finite element 

codes are telling you the things you need to do,” said

Dr. Raju. “They can tell you what to watch out for.”

References: [1] Raju, I. S.; Knight, N. F.; and Shivakumar, K. N.: Some Observations On The Current Status of Performing Finite Element Analyses, Paper presented 

at the AIAA SCITECH 2015, January 5-9, 2015, Kissimmee, FL, Paper AIAA-2015-2070, 2015; [2] T. Rose: “Your Answers are Wrong!!!,” Presentation to the combined 

Loads & Dynamics and Structures NESC Technical Discipline Teams, April 14, 2014; [3] L. Proctor: “Modal checkout in MSC.NASTRAN,” MSC Lunch-n-Learn Series, 

April 2008; [4] ANSYS: FEA-Best Practices, Document can be downloaded from: http://innomet.ttu.ee/martin/MER0070/Loengud/FEA_Best_Practices.pdf.

For more than 40 years, Dr. Ivatury Raju, NASA Technical 

Fellow for Structures, has watched structural analysis 

grow by leaps and bounds. Giant mainframe computers 

used to plug away for months to generate sophisticated 

finite element analyses (FEA). Today, desktop computers 

can produce FEA results with complex 3D models in a 

matter of days. But with this progress, Dr. Raju and the 

structures greybeards are witnessing some alarming and 

worsening trends. 

Many early-career engineers, proficient in the use of 

modern computers, computing engines, and complex 

software packages such as NASTRAN, ANSYS, and 

ABAQUS, are performing intricate FEA analyses without 

a sufficient background in engineering mechanics and 

are blindly accepting the quality of the results. Dr. Raju’s 

concern reached a tipping point when he read a comment 

on a popular social networking site for scientists and 

researchers: The model exactly looks like the part. The 

analysis ran to completion without any errors; the results are 

displayed as contour plots in color—how could the analysis 

and results be wrong? 

“This analyst believed that the results displayed were 

satisfactory and accurate, and there was no need to 

check the results,” said Dr. Raju. “These questions point to 

inadequate formal training in engineering mechanics and 

FEA theory. That was the motivation for me to write this 

paper,” said Dr. Raju, who co-authored Some Observations 

on the Current Status of Performing Finite Element Analysis, 

with fellow engineers Dr. Norman Knight and Dr. Kunigal 

Shivakumar. “We had to raise this flag,” he said. The paper 

has allowed Dr. Raju and his coauthors to draw attention to 

some of these trends and offer guidelines and suggestions 

to help overcome them. (See Sidebar: Undesirable Current 

Trends). 

Adept at meshing—but not at modeling

What Dr. Raju has noticed over the last few years is that earlycareer engineers, analysts, and other users of FEA software 

are quite adept at performing swift and accurate meshing 

of components for complex aerospace structures. But not 

all of those users have mastered the art of modeling. The 

authors point out that meshing requires expertise in using 

a software package, while modeling involves expertise 

in idealization of the structure and in understanding the 

structural response to loads and restraints. 

Dr. Raju said users need to understand the implications 

associated with selecting one element type over another. 

“In a way, modeling involves knowing the answer before 

you get it. So unless you have experience, you don’t know 

where to put the fine mesh,” he said. Choices associated 

with the element shape function order (linear, quadratic, 

p-versions), element continuity requirements, placement of 

mid-side nodes, and facetted modeling of curved surfaces 

do influence the results. 

An Airplane Empennage 

Finite Element Model

Recommendations for Analysts

and Senior Engineers

For analysts:

Study software developers’ manuals.

Actively pursue verification and validation of

your finite element models.

Experiment with various elements to develop a 

personal library of elements and report card test 

cases.

Be your own worst critic.

Do your analysis results support your 

conclusions?

Does your analysis support the assumptions 

made?

For senior engineers and educators:

Ensure junior engineers receive proper

grounding in classical methods, finite element 

theory, simple yet bounding models, hand 

calculation techniques, and methods for 

evaluating finite element results. 

Invest time in mentoring junior engineers.

Teach best practices and “tricks of this

analysis trade.”

Teach processes to evaluate finite element

results before they accept them. 

Undesirable Current Trends

General lack of understanding of basic 

assumptions in engineering mechanics is 

observed.

Finer meshes where they are not needed and 

coarse meshes where large gradients exist 

are frequently observed, suggesting lack 

of knowledge of structural and engineering 

mechanics.

Black box software packages are being used 

without engineering knowledge about finite 

element theory, and there is a blind acceptance 

without any quality checks and interpretation of 

results.

The use of building block approaches in finite 

element modeling and analysis is very rare.

A well-thought-out plan to modeling the analysis 

region is rarely evident.

Finite Element Analyses

Not all beautiful color plots are precise or accurate

Early finite element model of the Orion 

crew module mounted in heatshield. 

Complex models can have millions of 

degrees of freedom. 

1. Global finite 

element model

3. Focus of 

analysis

2. Local finite 

element model with 

fine mesh
38 39

The notched double cantilever beam (nDCB) test has 

been successfully used to measure the mode-I fracture 

toughness of an anisotropic ablative material used on 

the Orion crew module heatshield. The nDCB test was 

developed by combining the strengths and avoiding the 

weaknesses of two existing standard test methods, namely 

the double cantilever beam test and the compact tension 

test. The double cantilever beam test is a standard test for 

measuring the mode-I fracture toughness (GIc) of layered 

composite materials. 

This test method has several strengths, such as its simplicity 

of execution and adaptability for use in environmental 

chambers. It also allows a compliance calibration method 

of fracture toughness calculation, which can be more 

robust when dealing with complex material systems. 

However, when this test method was used with the ablative 

material of interest, the crack front wandered away from the 

mid-plane of the specimen, violating the self-similar crack 

growth assumption inherent in measuring GIc. With a 

notched compact tension (CT) test specimen, planer crack 

growth was maintained, but it produces a toughness in 

terms of the critical stress intensity factor (KIc). Converting 

KIc back to a Glc needed for the analysis is not trivial due 

to the anisotropy of the material and introducing additional 

uncertainty in the toughness allowable. The notched 

computed tomography test is also focused on the initiation 

value of toughness while with complex nonhomogeneous 

materials where a damage field develops, a propagation 

value may be more appropriate. The nDCB test allows for 

propagation values to be calculated over several inches of 

crack growth. By combining the standard tests into the 

nDCB, a test was achieved that delivers a G-based fracture 

toughness over a significant distance of self-similar crack 

propagation using robust data reduction methods that are 

very similar to the standardized test. For more information, 

contact Dr. James Ratcliffe, LaRC - james.g.ratcliffe@

nasa.gov or Vinay Goyal, The Aerospace Corporation - 

vinay.k.goyal@aero.org

In response to the revised requirement levied onto the 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program to verify 

that uninstalled flight window assemblies have minimal 

wavefront variation, KSC’s Applied Physics Laboratory 

partnered with the NESC in the development of

a wavefront measurement capability at KSC, in close 

proximity to the MPCV crew module assembly site. The 

measurement required the construction of an optical 

interferometer-based wavefront measurement system 

consisting of an off-the-shelf interferometer and a custom 

scanning system. Training, testing, analysis, and an 

engineering assessment were required to ensure adequate 

system operation and that the deliverables provided could 

allow certification of window assemblies.

The system utilizes a phase shifting interferometer to 

provide optical path length measurements through an 

individual window pane or through a fully stacked window 

assembly. Variations in the window’s optical path length 

lead to wavefront perturbations and can cause images 

seen through the window to be distorted. The revised 

NASA requirement on spacecraft windows sets maximum 

allowed values for the wavefront perturbation, but other 

organizations, such as the Department of Defense, place 

maximum allowable values on the window’s distortion, 

a window attribute that can be difficult to quantify using 

ASTM or ISO methodologies. One of the breakthroughs

of this work was the realization that the distortion

of a window is easily calculated from the optical

path length of the window, allowing phase shifting 

interferometry to replace some of the older less precise 

distortion measurement approaches (see references). 

After establishing the window wavefront measurement 

system for MPCV, the International Space Station (ISS) 

Program requested that it be used to help evaluate 

References: [1] Youngquist, R. C.; Skow, M.; and Nurge, M. A.: Optical Distortion Evaluation in Large Area Windows Using Interferometry, 14th International Symposium 

on Nondestructive Characterization of Materials, Marina del Rey, CA, June 2015, published on-line in NDT.net Vol. 20, No. 9 September 2015. [2] Youngquist, R. C.; Skow, 

M.; and Nurge, M. A.: A Comparison of Three Methods for Measuring Distortion in Optical Windows, NASA TM 2015-218822. 

new scratch panes to cover the inside of windows on 

the ISS. The successful operation of the system in that 

evaluation has led to further ISS requests for window/

material evaluation, including a request to perform 

modulation transfer function (MTF) measurements. MTF 

evaluation is a common optical approach for determining 

the imaging resolution capability of an optical system. 

However, measuring the MTF of a window has previously 

required measuring the MTF of a camera system with and 

without the window and comparing the results. Using 

software already programmed into the phase shifting 

interferometer MTF measurements of just the window 

can be obtained from the optical path length data, greatly 

simplifying the measurement of this important parameter. 

For more information, contact Robert Youngquist, 

Kennedy Space Center - robert.c.youngquist@nasa.gov 

Continued next page

Continued

An output from the phase shifting interferometer looking through 

an acrylic window pane. Note the fringe pattern in the lower right 

and the subsequent calculated optical path length information 

shown in the other display boxes.

Notched CT (Compact Tension)

Initial crack

Metal doublers Ablative material

nDCB End view

Load

Hinge

DCB (Double Cantilever Beam Test)

The wavefront measurement system is composed of a 6-inch aperture phase shifting interferometer on a vibration isolated optical table with a 

2-D scanning system. This allows the optical path length to be measured across large spacecraft windows as well as individual panes.

Combining the nDCB and notched compact tension tests into the new 

notched nDBC test.

The Orion crew module.
40 41

The NESC investigated the construction and testing 

techniques of a composite pressure vessel for the Orion 

crew module. The full-scale Composite Crew Module was 

built by Alliant Techsystems (ATK), at Iuka, Mississippi, 

and delivered to LaRC for testing in September 2009. The 

main test matrix included 11 load cases consisting mostly 

of combined point loads and internal pressure. Point loads 

were applied to the crew module’s fittings such as the 

parachute attachment points. To facilitate testing, a selfreacting loading frame was designed and built (also in Iuka), 

which additionally served as the skeleton for the shipping 

container. 

Because the majority of the fittings were located on the 

upper half of the module, the test article was mounted 

in the test frame upside down. This allowed for all heavy 

hardware (actuators, brackets, etc.) to be mounted securely 

to the base of the frame. Another advantage afforded by the 

upside configuration was easy access to the tunnel hatch 

where all cable harnesses feed-throughs and air inlet port 

were located. 

Point loads to fittings were applied using an innovative 

technique to route load from the hydraulic actuators to 

the fittings through a low-stretch strap (less than 1% 

extension). Mounting the heavy actuators horizontally on 

the base of the test frame and routing the straps through 

heavy duty rollers to achieve the desired load vector proved 

to be very effective. Since none of the heavy actuators 

had to be repositioned, this method allowed for quick test 

reconfiguration. To account for possible friction, two load 

cells were used to monitor the load at each end of the strap. 

For more information, contact Dr. Sotiris Kellas, LaRC, 

sotiris.kellas@nasa.gov

The NESC is supporting an effort to inspect the condition of 

the bondline between the thermal protection system (TPS) 

and the composite substrate of the Orion spacecraft. A 

failure mode of concern is loss of a block due to an incipient 

flaw propagating during reentry heating conditions. Several 

nondestructive inspections were explored, but all of them 

had significant limitations. Mostly, they were unable to 

detect unbonded surfaces that are in intimate contact 

kissing unbond. To inspect the mechanical condition of the 

bond, a mechanical wave such as ultrasound, rather than 

an electromagnetic wave was necessary. The challenges 

of using ultrasound were quickly recognized, and a set of 

remedies were implemented by the NESC. 

To penetrate the TPS, low frequency ultrasound is used 

at the cost of having long wavelengths, which result 

in poor resolution between consecutive echoes, and a 

Avcoat NDE Raw Scan Avcoat NDE Processed Scan 

Spreadsheet-based thermal analysis tools have been 

developed to analyze current carrying capacity of wire 

bundle configurations. Wire bundles composed of up 

to 50 elements may be solved within the spreadsheet 

tool itself. Larger bundles, composed of up to 150 

elements, utilize a spreadsheet-based complex wire 

bundle thermal model builder where user inputs are 

processed into a thermal network model and output in 

the System Improved Numerical Differencing Analyzer 

(SINDA) format for solution. The resulting models include 

the effects of temperature varying resistance, wire 

gauge, insulation jacket properties, external radiation 

and convection, wire-to-wire thermal contact, radiation, 

and air conduction. Current procedures using published 

standards limit the types of configurations that can be 

assessed using graphical data. The goal of this effort 

is to provide analysis capability allowing assessment 

of a variety of configurations including bundles with 

internal smart shorts, combinations of wire gauges, and 

external jacket properties. Monte Carlo-based analysis 

capability is included in the tools and allows analysts to 

explore the solution sensitivity to uncertainties in a variety 

of input variables. Accurate thermal modeling of wire 

bundles ensures the design is robust against smart shorts 

within the wire bundle. Additionally, a model-based 

approach may allow for design efficiencies resulting in 

reduced wire bundle weight within an aerospace vehicle. 

For more information, contact Steven Rickman, JSC, 

steven.l.rickman@nasa.gov

Sample steady-state temperature distributions resulting from a 

Monte Carlo analysis.

Temperature - C°

Sample wire bundle 

analysis configuration 

schematic.

Outer 

insulation 

jacket

large transducer footprint, which results in poor spatial 

resolution. Special transducers are used with a particular 

coupling medium that allowed sound to be injected into 

the highly attenuative TPS material with minimal losses. 

The echo returning from the bondline between the TPS 

and composite substrate is normalized against the 

echo returning from the back wall of the substrate. This 

neutralizes the inhomogeneity and scattering effects that 

are typically experienced by sound in the TPS. Additional 

signal processing techniques are applied to analyze the 

phase and shape of the bondline echo as a discriminating 

factor between “bond” and “no bond” conditions. The 

Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique is then applied to 

significantly improve the sharpness of these scans and 

restore some of the spatial resolution that was lost by the 

large footprint of the transducer. The probe is connected 

to two string encoders such that a real-time image is 

produced as the inspector performs a freehand scan of the 

spacecraft. This technique has shown significant promise 

in detecting unbonds and debonds in various blind studies 

and are now considered as one of the primary inspection 

techniques for the heatshield. For more information, 

contact Dr. Shant Kenderian, The Aerospace Corporation 

- shant.kenderian@aero.org

Continued next page

Continued

Innovative mechanism that 

uses low-stretch straps 

to route point loads to a 

structure.

Kissing unbond

Missing bond

Probability
42 43

A new approach has been developed for measuring 

fluctuating aerodynamic-induced pressures on wind tunnel 

models using unsteady pressure sensitive paint (uPSP). 

During ascent through the atmosphere, a launch vehicle 

and its payload experience strong aerodynamic loads. 

These loads have large fluctuating levels that are difficult 

to measure. The structural design of a launch vehicle must 

account for both steady and unsteady loads in order to 

ensure safe flight to orbit. During the design process, these 

loads must be estimated accurately, and wind tunnel buffet 

testing is still the best option.

Buffet tests require accurate measurement of the steady 

and fluctuating pressures at as many points on the surface 

as possible. However, the finite size of pressure sensors 

sets an upper limit of approximately 400 sensors that can 

be placed in a wind tunnel model, resulting in very sparse 

pressure measurements over the vehicle.

Early wind tunnel tests of the Space Launch System 

indicated that buffet loads were larger than expected. 

Subsequent testing indicated that the buffet estimates 

were very sensitive to the details of sparse, unsteady 

pressure data integration. The work was performed to 

evaluate the integration techniques by using a relatively 

new measurement technique.

The new approach increases the density of pressure 

measurements by using uPSP. PSP has been commonly 

used in wind tunnels for 20 years to measure time-average 

pressure but until recently, did not have a sufficiently fast 

response to measure unsteady pressures. Advances in 

both camera technology and the chemistry of PSP have 

enabled the measurement of unsteady pressures. 

The uPSP measurements are made by illuminating the 

painted model in the wind tunnel with blue light. The uPSP 

fluoresces red, and the brightness of the fluorescence is 

proportional to the pressure acting on the paint. Pressure 

fluctuations at up to 5,000 Hz can now be resolved and 

measured.

The uPSP measurement technique was verified in a large 

production wind tunnel (the 11- by 11-foot Transonic Wind 

Tunnel) during a recent test, in which traditional pressure 

measurements were compared to those made by uPSP. The 

verification testing of uPSP was based on measuring the 

unsteady loads on a wind tunnel model of a generic launch 

vehicle (see picture). Measurements from 213 individual 

pressure sensors were augmented by the use of uPSP. 

Results showed the extremely dense uPSP measurements 

provide accurate load estimates at up to 5 kHz without 

any approximations. Comparing the uPSP loads with the 

estimates from the pressure sensors showed the strengths 

and weaknesses of the sparse-data correction schemes. 

In most areas of the generic launch vehicle model, the 

sparse data integration methods overestimated the buffet 

loads. However, in some areas, buffet loads were underestimated. More work is underway to determine ways of 

identifying features of the unsteady pressure field that lead 

to over- and under-prediction of the unsteady buffet loads.

The uPSP measurement technology used in these tests is 

the result of government-funded research by NASA and 

the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering and Development 

Center (AEDC). The particularly fast PSP used for this test 

was developed by Innovative Scientific Solutions, Inc. The 

system used for the test was developed at the AEDC. This 

test is the first time uPSP has been employed in a large 

transonic wind tunnel at NASA and is another in a series of 

PSP collaborations between AEDC and NASA.

For more information, contact Robert Youngquist, KSC, 

robert.c.youngquist@nasa.gov

 

Unsteady pressure sensitive paint applied to generic launch vehicle model 

in the 11- by 11-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel at ARC.

Post-processing of failed composite shell 

from latest Shell Buckling Knockdown 

Factor test in March 2016. 
44 45

Richard E. Dyke

In recognition of engineering excellence and leadership in the 

structural design, analysis, launch, and recovery of Taurion 

for the Taurion/Sprint Flight Test Project

Vinay K. Goyal

In recognition of engineering excellence in support to assess 

the integrity of the critical bond of Avcoat material on the 

Orion heatshield

Shant Kenderian

In recognition of engineering excellence leading to the 

development of a novel Non Destructive Evaluation technique 

that provides previously unobtainable full inspection of the 

critical Orion heatshield bondline

Reggie T. Kidd

In recognition of engineering excellence in design and 

integration of the Taurion and Sprint vehicles for the Taurion/

Sprint Flight Test Project

Craig W. Ohlhorst

In recognition of engineering excellence in the innovative 

analysis of frangible joint behavior for the NASA Engineering 

and Safety Center Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs 

Assessment

James G. Ratcliffe

In recognition of engineering excellence leading to 

advancements in fracture mechanics testing and analysis of 

Avcoat material used in the Orion heatshield

Marvin E. Sellers

In recognition of engineering excellence in the integration and 

demonstration of an advanced unsteady pressure sensitive 

paint capability in NASA wind tunnels for launch vehicle 

buffet prediction

Kyongchan Song

In recognition of engineering excellence in the structural 

analyses support for multiple NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center assessments

Eugene K. Ungar

In recognition of engineering excellence in support of the 

SOFIA Project in developing a scientifically-based and 

practical methodology for the safe design of new science 

instruments

NESC Administrative Excellence Award

Wayne E. Branch

In recognition of exceptional information technology and 

system administration support to the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center

Loren J. Plante

In recognition of exceptional program analyst support to 

the NASA Engineering and Safety Center Management and 

Technical Support Office

NESC Group Achievement Award

Avcoat Non Destructive Evaluation Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in the field of Non 

Destructive Evaluation for the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center led bond verification plan for the Orion Avcoat thermal 

protection system 

Launch Vehicle Buffet Verification Team

In recognition of excellence in defining, planning, and 

executing a test program to investigate innovative techniques 

for prediction of launch vehicle buffet environments 

Multi-Stage Supersonic Target Missile Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in the design, 

development, and successful flight test of the Taurion 

sounding rocket booster in support of the U.S. Navy multistage supersonic target missile 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Shell Buckling 

Knockdown Factor Assessment Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in the highly 

successful test of the 8-foot diameter composite shell 

Orion and Commercial Crew Window Wavefront 

Measurement Assessment Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in the field of Non 

Destructive Evaluation for the Orion and Commercial Crew 

Window Wavefront Measurement Assessment 

Spacecraft Occupant Protection Team

In recognition of development of tools and methods for 

crew injury prediction to ensure human-rated spacecraft are 

designed with the appropriate level of occupant protection 

NESC Directors Award

Norman F. Knight

In recognition of technical excellence and the consistent, 

professional pursuit of technical risks in the conduct of 

multiple NASA Engineering and Safety Center assessments

NESC Leadership Award

James R. Reeder

In recognition of outstanding technical leadership of the 

material property testing and analysis in support of the 

assessment and verification of the Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle Exploration Mission-1 heatshield

Larry W. Starritt

In recognition of outstanding technical leadership of the 

Frangible Joint Test Team for the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs 

Assessment

NESC Engineering Excellence Award

James R. Beaty

In recognition of engineering excellence in the feasibility, 

definition, objectives, performance prediction, and range 

safety for the Taurion/Sprint Flight Test Project

Shawn E. Brechbill

In recognition of engineering excellence for the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center Fracture and Reliability of 

Valve Bellows Assessment

David S. Dawicke

In recognition of engineering excellence in the innovative 

analysis of frangible joint behavior for the NASA Engineering 

and Safety Center Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs 

Assessment

Left to right: (Front row) Nancy Currie-Gregg (NASA Astronaut/presenter); Craig Ohlhorst (LaRC); Vinay Goyal (The Aerospace Corp.); Reggie 

Kidd (AMA); Wayne Branch (HPES); Larry Starritt (Jacobs Technology); Loren Plante (JSC); Timmy Wilson (NESC Director/presenter); Michael 

Kirsch (NESC Deputy Director/presenter); (Second row) James Beaty (LaRC); Susan Danley (KSC); Brian Davis (LaRC); Marc Schultz (LaRC); 

James Ross (ARC); Jeffrey Somers (KBRwyle); (Third row) David Dawicke (AS&M); James Reeder (LaRC); Eric Dyke (LaRC); Shant Kenderian 

(The Aerospace Corp.); Eric Burke (LaRC); Shawn Brechbill (MSFC); (Last row) James Ratcliffe (LaRC); Kyongchan Song (AMA); Norman 

Knight (SAIC); Hank Rotter (NESC) 

Not pictured: Marvin Sellers (Arnold Engineering and Development Center) and Eugene Ungar (JSC)
NESC ALUMNI

46 47

Frank H. Bauer

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Guidance Navigation and 

Control (2003-04)

J. Larry Crawford

NESC Deputy Director for 

Safety (2003-04) 

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

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2005) 

Derrick J. Cheston

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Glenn Research Center 

(2003-07) 

Mitchell L. Davis

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Avionics (2007-09) 

Dennis B. Dillman

NESC Chief Engineer 

at NASA Headquarters 

(2005-08

Freddie Douglas, III

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center 

(2007-08) 

Patricia L. Dunnington

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2006-08)

Dawn C. Emerson

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Glenn Research Center

(2011-14)

Walter C. Engelund

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Langley Research Center 

(2009-13)

Wayne R. Frazier

Senior SMA Integration 

Manager (2005-12)

Dr. Michael S. Freeman

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Ames Research Center 

(2003-04)

T. Randy Galloway

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center 

(2003-04)

Roberto Garcia

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion (2007-13)

Dr. Edward R. Generazio

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Nondestructive Evaluation 

(2003-05)

Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-05) 

Michael Hagopian

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

(2003-07)

David A. Hamilton

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Johnson Space Center 

(2003-07) 

Dr. Charles E. Harris

NESC Principal Engineer 

(2003-06) 

Dr. Steven A. Hawley

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2003-04) 

Marc S. Hollander

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2005-06)

George D. Hopson

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion (2003-07) 

Keith L. Hudkins

NASA Headquarters Office 

of the Chief Engineer 

Representative (2003-07) 

Danny D. Johnston

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2003-04) 

Michael W. Kehoe

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Dryden Flight Research 

Center (2003-05) 

Denney J. Keys

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Electrical Power (2009-12)

Robert A. Kichak

NESC Discipline Expert 

for Power and Avionics 

(2003-07) 

Dr. Dean A. Kontinos

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Ames Research Center 

(2006-07)

Julie A. Kramer White

NESC Discipline Expert 

for Mechanical Analysis 

(2003-06) 

Nans Kunz

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Ames Research Center

(2009-15)

Steven G. Labbe

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Flight Sciences (2003-06) 

Matthew R. Landano

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(2003-04) 

Dr. David S. Leckrone

NESC Chief Scientist 

(2003-06) 

Richard T. Manella

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Glenn Research Center 

(2009-10) 

John P. McManamen

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Mechanical Systems 

(2003-07) 

Brian K. Muirhead

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(2005-07) 

Dr. Paul M. Munafo

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-04) 

Stan C. Newberry

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2003-04) 

Dr. Tina L. Panontin

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Ames Research Center 

(2008-09)

Joseph W. Pellicciotti

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Mechanical Systems (2008 - 

13) and NESC Chief Engineer 

at Goddard Space Flight 

Center (2013-15)

Dr. Robert S. Piascik

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Materials (2003-16)

Dr. Shamim A. Rahman

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center 

(2005-06) 

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NESC Director (2003-14)

Jerry L. Ross

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2004-06) 

Dr. Charles F. Schafer

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2006-10)

Dawn M. Schaible

Manager, Systems 

Engineering Office (2003-14)

Steven S. Scott

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Software (2003-05) and 

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

(2008-09) 

Bryan K. Smith

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Glenn Research Center 

(2008-10) 

Dr. James F. Stewart

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Armstrong Flight Research 

Center (2005-14)

Daniel J. Tenney

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2009-13)

John E. Tinsley

NASA Headquarters 

Senior Safety and Mission 

Assurance Manager for 

NESC (2003-04) 

Timothy G. Trenkle

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

(2009-13)

Clayton P. Turner

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Langley Research Center 

(2008-09)

Michael L. 

Aguilar

Software

Dr. Thomas M. 

Brown

Propulsion

Dr. Michael J. 

Dube

Mechanical

Systems

Cornelius J.

Dennehy

GNC

Clinton H. 

Cragg

Dr. Nancy J. 

Currie-Gregg

Dr. Michael G. 

Gilbert

Michael D. 

Squire

Patrick A. Martin

NASA HQ Senior 

S&MA Integration 

Manager

Timmy R. 

Wilson

Director

Michael P. 

Blythe

Deputy Director

for Safety

Patrick G.

Forrester

Chief

Astronaut

Dr. Daniel

Winterhalter 

Chief Scientist

Michael T.

Kirsch

Deputy

Director

Steven J. 

Gentz

MSFC

Robert S.

Jankovsky

GRC

R. Lloyd 

Keith

JPL

Kenneth R.

Hamm, Jr.

ARC

Dr. W. Lance 

Richards

AFRC

Paul W.

Roberts

LaRC

Jill L. Prince

Manager,

NESC Integration 

Office

Stephen A. 

Minute 

KSC

George L.

Jackson

GSFC

Dr. David M.

Schuster

Aerosciences

Henry A.

Rotter

Environmental 

Control/Life 

Support

Dr. Upendra N.

Singh

Sensors/

Instrumentation

Steven L. 

Rickman

Passive 

Thermal

T. Scott 

West

JSC

Michael D. 

Smiles

SSC

Dr. William H. 

Prosser

NDE

Richard W.

Russell

Materials

Dr. Cynthia H. 

Null

Human

Factors

Dr. Ivatury S. 

Raju

Structures

Oscar

Gonzalez

Avionics

Dr. Curtis E. 

Larsen

Loads & 

Dynamics

Daniel G. 

Murri

Flight

Mechanics

Dr. Joseph I.

Minow 

Space

Environments

Dr. Christopher J. 

Iannello

Electrical

Power

Jon B.

Holladay

Systems

Engineering

See nesc.nasa.gov for full bios
48 49

NESC Scholarly Papers, Conference Proceedings, and Technical 

Presentations

1. Barth, T.; Blankmann-Alexander, D.; Kanki, B.; Lilley, S.; and Parker, 

B.: Recurring Themes From Human Spaceflight Mishaps During Flight 

Tests and Early Operations, Eighth IAASS Conference, May 18-20, 2016, 

Melbourne, FL. 

2. Brown, T.; Klem, M.; and McRight, P.: Foundational Methane 

Propulsion Related Technology Efforts and Challenges for Applications 

to Human Exploration Beyond Earth Orbit, 3AF Space Propulsion 2016, 

SP2016_3125381, 2016.

3. Currie-Gregg, N. J.: Managing Risk and Innovation in a High-Reliability 

Organization, 2016 Professional Engineers Conference, June 22-26, 2016, 

Dallas, TX. 

4. Czech, M. T.; Groh-Hammond, M.; Henderson, G.; Miller, D.; Neal, A. 

J.; Parker, R.; Ruiz, J.; Stambolian, D.; Tran, D.; Kanki, B.; Ellenberger, S. 

R.; Boyer, J.; Reynolds, D. W.; Dischinger, C.; Null, C. H.; and Barth, T. S.: 

Ground Operations Human Factors Task Analysis Pathfinder, Eighth IAASS 

Conference, May 18-20, 2016, Melbourne, FL. 

5. Ferguson, D. C. and Minow, J. I.: Status of Spacecraft Charging in the 

USA, 14th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, April 4-8, 2016, 

Noordwijk, Netherlands. 

6. Gilbert, M. G.: Purpose, Principles, and Challenges of the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center, 8th IAASS Conference “Safety First, Safety 

for All,” May 18-20, 2016, Melbourne, FL. 

7. Horvath, T. J.; Rufer, S. J.; Schuster, D. M.; Mendeck, G. F.; Oliver, A. 

B.; Schwartz, R. J.; Verstynen, H. A.; Mercer, C. D.; Tack, S.; Ingram, B.; 

Spisz, T. S.; Taylor, J. C.; Gibson, D. M.; Osei-Wusu, Kwame; Kennerly S.; 

and Bush, B. C.: Infrared Observations of the Orion Capsule During EFT-1 

Hypersonic Re-entry,” AIAA Paper 2016-4285, June 2016.

8. Irvine, T. and Larsen, C. E.: Modified Spectral Fatigue Methods for 

S-N Curves with MIL-HDBK-5J Coefficients, 14th European Conference on 

Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Environmental Testing (ECSSMET), 

September 27-30, 2016, Toulouse, France. 

9. Johnson, K. L. and Tylka, J.: Burn Length: The 10k Test, Knowledge 

Exchange Workshop 2016, April 11-13, 2016, Crystal City, VA. 

10. Larsen, C. E. and Raju, I. S.: Moving Aerospace Structural Design 

Practice to a Load and Resistance Factor Approach, SciTech Conference, 

January 4-8, 2016, AIAA Paper 2006-2030, San Diego, CA. 

11. Mendenhall, M. R.; Lesieutre, D. J.; and Kelly, M. J.: Wake-induced 

Aerodynamics on a Trailing Aircraft, 2016 Applied Aerodynamics 

Conference, July 19-21, 2016, Bristol, United Kingdom. 

12. Minow, J. I.: Space Environments and NASA’s Engineering and Safety 

Center, 96th Annual AMS Meeting, January 10-14, 2016, New Orleans, LA. 

13. Minow, J. I.: Tutorial: Science Weather Impacts on Space Assets, 

CCMC Space Weather School, Science of Space Weather Workshop, 

January 24, 2016, Goa, India. 

14. Minow, J. I.: Spacecraft Charging and Auroral Boundary Predictions 

in Low Earth Orbit, Science for Space Weather Workshop, January 24-29, 

2016, Goa, India. 

15. Minow, J. I.: Space Weather Impacts on Satellites with Emphasis on 

Launch Vehicles, GSFC Weather Training Course, February 2-4, 2016, 

Cocoa Beach, FL. 

16. Minow, J. I.: NASA Missions Space Weather Needs: Spacecraft 

(Surface) Charging at LEO Orbits, 8th CCMC Workshop 2016, April 10-15, 

2016, Annapolis, MD. 

17. Minow, J. I.: NASA Technical Fellow for Space Environments View of 

CCMC, 8th CCMC Workshop 2016, April 10-15, 2016, Annapolis, MD. 

18. Minow, J. I.: CHANDRA Space Weather Vulnerabilities and Needs 

Update, 8th NASA Space Exploration & Space Weather Workshop, 

September 27-28, 2016, Greenbelt, MD. 

19. Minow, J. I.: NASA Space Exploration and Space Weather Workshop, 

8th NASA Space Exploration & Space Weather Workshop, September 27-

28, 2016, Greenbelt, MD. 

20. Minow, J. I. and Neergaard Parker, L.: Dual-Spacecraft Observations of 

Auroral Charging, 14th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, April 

4-8, 2016, Noordwijk, Netherlands. 

21. Prosser, W. H.: The NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Nondestructive Evaluation Technical Discipline Team, 25th ASNT Research 

Symposium 2016, April 11-14, 2016, New Orleans, LA. 

22. Prosser, W. H.: Applications of Advanced Nondestructive Measurement 

Techniques to Address Safety of Flight Issues on NASA Spacecraft, 3rd 

International Workshop on Metrology for Aerospace, June 21-23, 2016, 

Florence, Italy. 

5. Gilbert, A.; Mesmer, B.; and Watson, M. D.: Exergy Based Optimization 

of Rocket System Staging Times, IEEE International Systems Conference, 

April 18-21, 2016, Orlando, FL.

6. Greene, M. T. and Papalambros, P. Y.: A Cognitive Framework for 

Engineering Systems Thinking, 14th Annual Conference on Systems 

Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, Huntsville, AL.

7. Greene, M. T.; Papalambros, P. Y.; and McGowan, A.-M.: Position 

Paper: Designing Complex Systems to Support Interdisciplinary Cognitive 

Work, 14th International DESIGN Conference, May 16-19, 2016, Cavitat, 

Dubrovnik, Croatia. 

8. Johnson, Stephen B. and Day, John C.: Theoretical Foundations for the 

Discipline of Systems Engineering, AIAA SciTech Conference, AIAA Paper 

2016-0212, January 4-8, 2016, San Diego, CA.

9. Johnson, Stephen B.: The Representations and Practices of the 

Discipline of Systems Engineering, 14th Annual Conference on Systems 

Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, Huntsville, AL.

10. Kis, D.; Poetting M.; Wenger, C.; and Bloebaum, C. L.: A 

Multidisciplinary Coupling Analysis Method to Support Investigation of 

Ares 1 Thrust Oscillation, 14th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering 

Research, March 22-24, 2016, Huntsville, AL.

11. Marquart, S. and Szajnfarber, Z.: A Novel Approach to Measuring the 

Time-Impact of Oversight Activities on Engineering Work, 14th Annual 

Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, 

Huntsville, AL.

12. Moreland, Rob; Phojanamongkolkij, Nipa; Knizhnik, Jessica; Mills, Ted; 

and Weiland, Karen: A Survey of Model-Based Programmatic Systems 

Methodology at NASA, NASA Cost Symposium, August 25, 2016, NASA

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH.

13. Price, R. M. and Malak, R. J.: A Capability-Based Framework for 

Supporting Value-Driven Design, 14th Annual Conference on Systems 

Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, Huntsville, AL. 

14. Watson, M. and Farrington P.: NASA Systems Engineering Research 

Consortium: Defining the Path to Elegance in Systems, 14th Annual 

Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, 

Huntsville, AL.

Continued next page

NESC Technical Discipline Team Member Scholarly Papers, Conference 

Proceedings, and Technical Presentations

Aerosciences

1. Panda, J.; Roozeboom, N. H.; and Ross, J. C.: WavenumberFrequency Spectra of Pressure Fluctuations Measured via Fast-Response 

Pressure-Sensitive Paint, 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 

AIAA Paper 2016-3007, May 30 - June 1, 2016, Lyon, France.

2. Roozeboom, N. H.; Diosady, L. T.; Murman, S. M.; Burnside, N. J.; 

Panda, J.; and Ross, J. C.: Unsteady PSP Measurements on a Flat Plate 

Subject to Vortex Shedding from a Rectangular Prism, SciTech 2016, AIAA 

Paper 2016-2017, January 4-8, 2016, San Diego, CA.

3. Spisz, T. S.; Taylor, J. C.; Gibson, D. M.; Kennerly, S.; Osei-Wusu, 

Kwame; Horvath, T. J.; Schwartz, R. J.; Tack, S.; Bush, B. C.; and Oliver, 

B.: Processing Near-Infrared Imagery of the Orion Heatshield During EFT-1 

Hypersonic Reentry, AIAA Aviation and Aeronautics Forum and Exposition 

2016, AIAA Paper 2016-4286, June 13-17, 2016, Washington, DC.

4. Vander Kam, Jeremy: Orion Exploration Flight Test One (EFT-1) 

Spacecraft Recovery and Thermal Protection System (TPS) Assessment, 

27th Annual Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop, August 1-4, 2016, 

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.

Avionics

1. Ladbury, R. and Lauenstein, J.-M: Evaluating Constraints on HeavyIon SEE Susceptibility Imposed by Proton SEE Testing and Other Mixed 

Environments, 2016 Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conference, July 

11-15, 2016, Portland, OR.

Electrical Power

1. Darcy, Eric: Single Cell Thermal Runaway Hazard Severity Reduction 

on the Spacesuit Battery, Sustainable Aviation Symposium 2016, May 6-7, 

2016, Redwood City, CA.

2. Darcy, Eric and Keyser, Matthew: On Demand Internal Short Circuit 

Device Enables Verification of Safer, Higher Performing Battery Designs, 18th 

International Meeting on Lithium Batteries, June 19-24, 2016, Chicago, IL.

3. Finegan, Donal; Darcy, E.; Keyser, M.; Tjaden, B.; Robinson, J.; Taiwo, 

O. O.; Hunt, I.; Scheel, M.; Di Michiel, M.; Rack, A.; Offer, G. J.; Hinds, G.; 

Brett, D. J. L.; and Shearing. P.R.: Understanding Battery Failure: A MultiScale and High-Speed X-Ray CT Approach, 18th International Meeting on 

Lithium Batteries, June 19-24, 2016, Chicago, IL.

4. Keyser, M.; Darcy, E.; and Pesaran, A.: A Research Tool to Evaluate 

the Safety Response of Lithium Batteries to an Internal Short Circuit, 18th 

International Meeting on Lithium Batteries, June 19-24, 2016, Chicago, IL.

5. Walker, William Q.: Energy Distributions Exhibited during Thermal 

Runaway of Commercial Lithium Ion Batteries used for Human Spaceflight 

Applications, Interagency Advanced Power Group Meeting, February 17-

18, 2016, Houston, TX. 

6. Walker, William Q.: Energy Distributions Exhibited during Thermal 

Runaway of Commercial Lithium Ion Batteries used for Human Spaceflight 

Applications, 229th Electrochemical Society Meeting, May 29—June 2, 

2016, San Diego, CA.

7. Walker, William: Energy Distributions Exhibited during Thermal 

Runaway of Commercial Lithium Ion Batteries used for Human Spaceflight 

Applications, Thermal Fluids and Analysis Workshop, August 1-5, 2016, 

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.

8. Walker, William: New Understanding of Energy Distributions Exhibited 

during Thermal Runaway of Commercial Lithium-Ion Batteries Used 

for Human Spaceflight Applications, 7th Annual Battery 2016 Safety, 

November 3-4, 2016, Bethesda, MD.

9. Yayathi, Sandeep; Walker, William; Doughty, Daniel; and Ardebili, Haleh: 

Energy Distributions Exhibited during Thermal Runaway of Commercial 

Lithium Ion Batteries used for Human Spaceflight Applications, Journal of 

Power Sources 329 (2016), pp 197-206.

Loads and Dynamics 

1. Higgins, Stephen L.; Davis, Robert; and Brown, Andrew M.: ReducedOrder Modeling of Flow-Induced Vibrations in Bellows Joints of Rocket 

Propulsion Systems, 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural 

Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2016-0466, January 4-8, 

2016, San Diego, CA.

2. Irvine, Tom: A Comparison of PSD Enveloping Methods for 

Nonstationary Vibration, ESTECH 2016, May 2-5, 2016, Glendale, AZ.

3. Irvine, Tom: A Matlab GUI Package for Statistical Energy Analysis IV&V, 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, June 

21-23, 2016, El Segundo, CA.

4. Irvine, T.: Statistical Energy Analysis Software & Training Materials, 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, June 

21-23, 2016, El Segundo, CA. 

5. Irvine, Tom: Multiaxis Rainflow Fatigue Methods for Nonstationary 

Vibration, MoVIC & RASD 2016, July 3-6, 2016, University of Southampton, 

United Kingdom.

Mechanical Systems 

1. DellaCorte, C.; Howard, S. Adam; and Moore, Lewis E. III: Failure 

Analysis and Recovery of a 50-mm Highly Elastic Intermetallic NiTi Ball 

Bearing for an ISS Application, 43rd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, 

May 4, 2016, Santa Clara, CA.

2. DellaCorte, C.; Howard, S. A.; Thomas, F.; and Stanford, M. K.: 

Microstructural and Material Quality Effects on Rolling Contact Fatigue of 

Highly Elastic Intermetallic NiTi Ball Bearings,” 2016 STLE Annual Meeting, 

May 15-19, 2016, Las Vegas, NV.

Nondestructive Evaluation 

1. Carman, Gregory P.; Mohanchandra, Panduranga K.; Emmons, Michael 

C.; and Richards, W. Lance: Magneto-Optic Field Coupling in Optical Fiber 

Bragg Gratings, U.S. Patent, 9,274,181, March 2016.

2. Kenderian, Shant: Bond Quality Inspection for Nonhomogeneous 

Highly Attenuating Heat Shield Blocks, 3rd IEEE International Workshop on 

Metrology for Aerospace, June 22-23, 2016, Florence, Italy.

Software

1. Wilmot, Jonathan; Fesq, Lorraine; and Dvorak, Dan: Quality Attributes 

for Mission Flight Software: A Reference for Architects, 2016 IEEE 

Aerospace Conference, March 5-12, 2016, Big Sky, MT.

Structures

1. Goyal, V.; Rome, J.; Soltz, B.: Lessons Learned in Certifying Space 

Structures, American Society for Composites 31 Technical Conference and 

ASTM Committee D30 Meeting, September 19-22, 2016, Williamsburg, VA.

Systems Engineering

1. Clem, A. K.; Nelson, G. J.; Mesmer, B.; Watson, M.D.; and Perry, 

J. L.: Exergy Based Analysis for the Environmental Control and Life 

Support Systems of the International Space Station, AIAA Space 2016, 

September13-15, 2016, Long Beach, CA.

2. Componation, P.; Schomberg, K.; Ferreira, S.; and Hansen, J.: Systems 

Engineering Processes in NASA and Commercial Projects, 14th Annual 

Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 22-24, 2016, 

Huntsville, AL.

3. Gilbert, A. and Mesmer, B.: Uses of Exergy in Systems Engineering, 

14th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 22-24, 

2016, Huntsville, AL.

4. Gilbert, A.; Mesmer, B.; and Watson, M.D.: Exergy Analysis of Rocket 

Systems, IEEE International Systems Conference, April 18-21, 2016, 

Orlando, FL.

Continued next page
50

23. Raju, I. S.: Real Life Problems are Multi-disciplinary, 2016 AIAA 

Science and Technology Forum and Exposition, January 4-8, 2016, San 

Diego, CA. 

24. Raju, I. S.: Simple Test Functions in Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin 

Methods, 2016 AIAA SciTech Conference, January 4-8, 2016, AIAA Paper 

2006-1240, San Diego, CA. 

25. Raju, I. S.: Design Process Using Factors of Safety, Margins of Safety, 

and Probabilistic Approaches, Seminars to Engineering Students, February 

4-5, 2016, Kakinada And Hyderab, India. 

26. Raju, I. S.: Real Life Problems are Multidisciplinary, Seminar at the 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, September 23, 2016, Auburn, AL. 

27. Rickman, S. L.: Form Factors, Grey Bodies and Radiation 

Conductances (Radks), Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop 2016, 

August 1-5, 2016, Moffett Field, CA. 

28. Rickman, S. L.: Introduction to Numerical Methods in Heat Transfer, 

Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop 2016, August 1-5, 2016, Moffett 

Field, CA. 

29. Rickman, S. L.; Christie, R. J.; White, R. E.; Drolen, B. L.; and Navarro, 

M.: Considerations for Thermal Modeling of Lithium-Ion Cells for Battery 

Analysis, 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems, July 

10-14, 2016, Vienna, Austria. 

30. Rickman, S. L. and Iannello, C. J.: Heat Transfer Analysis in Wire 

Bundles for Aerospace Vehicles, 14th International Conference on 

Simulation and Experiments in Heat Transfer and its Applications, 

September 7-9, 2016, Ancona, Italy. 

31. Singh, U. N.: International Coordination-group for Laser Atmospheric 

Studies (ICLAS) Working Group Report for 2010-2015, The International 

Radiation Symposium 2016, April 16-22, 2016, Auckland, New Zealand. 

32. Singh, U. N.; Petros, M.; Refaat, T. F.; and Yu, J.: 2-micron Triple-pulse 

Integrated Path Differential Absorption Lidar Development for Simultaneous 

Airborne Column Measurements of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor in 

the Atmosphere, SPIE Asia-Pacific Remote Sensing, April 4-7, 2016, New 

Delhi, India. 

33. Singh, U. N.; Refaat, T. F.; Yu, J.; Petros, M.; and Kavaya, M. J.: 

High Energy Solid-state Pulsed 2-micron Lidar Development for Wind, 

Water Vapor and CO2 Measurements From Ground and Airborne, The 

International Radiation Symposium 2016, April 16-22, 2016, Auckland, New 

Zealand. 

34. Singh, U. N.; Petros, M.; Refaat, T. F.; Antill, C. W.; Remus, R. G.; and 

Yu, J.: Airborne Lidar for Simultaneous Measurement of Column CO2 and 

Water Vapor in the Atmosphere, SPIE Remote Sensing 2016, September 

26-29, 2016, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 

35. Singh, U. N.; Petros, M.; Yu, J.; Kavaya, M. J.; Refaat, T. F.; Shuman, T.; 

and Hovis, F.: Tm:Ho:YLF and LuLiF Laser Development for Global Winds 

Measurements, SPIE Remote Sensing 2016, September 26-29, 2016, 

Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

NESC Scholarly Papers, Conference Proceedings, and Technical 

Presentations 

NASA Technical Publications

1. The Making of SOFIA - The Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 

Astronomy - 1985 to 2016 NASA/NP-2016-09-842-LaRC

2. Experimental Verification of Buffet Calculation Procedure Using 

Unsteady PSP NASA/TM 2016-219069 

3. Space Launch System (SLS) Program Block IA Advanced Booster 

(AB) High-Performance Solid Propellant and Composite Case/Internal 

Polybenzimidazole (PBI) Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) Insulation 

Development NASA/TM-2016-219006

4. Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Gyroscope Anomaly and Reliability 

Investigation in Support of an Updated Management Plan

NASA/TM-2016-219014/Volume I

5. Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Gyroscope Anomaly and Reliability 

Investigation in Support of an Updated Management Plan Appendices 

NASA/NASA-TM-2016-219014/Volume II

6. Maxwell Technologies, Incorporated Single Board Computer (SBC) 

Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Panels Assessment (Lot 2 - Date Code (DC) 

1401 Follow-on Task) NASA/TM-2016-219187

7. Carbon Fiber Strand Tensile Failure Dynamic Event Characterization 

NASA/TM-2016-219188

8. Computing Buffet Environments for Space Launch System (SLS) 

Configurations NASA/TM-2016-219190

9. Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Window Wavefront 

Measurement Capability Development NASA/TM-2016-219207

10.Human Vibration Modeling for Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) 

Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA NASA/TM-2016-219208

11.Review of Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Crew Module 

(CM) European Space Agency (ESA) Service Module (ESM) Interfaces 

NASA/TM-2016-219212

12.Remote Imaging of Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) Entry Heating Risk 

Reduction NASA/TM-2016-219214

13.NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Modeling of CrawlerTransporter (CT), Mobile Launcher (ML), and Forcing Functions

NASA/TM-2016-219333

14.Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection 

NASA/TM-2016-219337/Volume I

15.Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection: 

Appendices Part 1 NASA/TM-2016-219337/Volume II-Part 1

16.Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection: 

Appendices Part 2 NASA/TM-2016-219337/Volume II-Part 2

Continued
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

NP-2016-11-858-LaRC