www.nasa.gov

NASA ENGINEERING

& SAFETY CENTER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

TEN YEARS

AND COUNTING

“After the tragedy of Columbia, we not only returned to flight, we

established policies and procedures to make our human spaceflight program 

safer than ever. Exploration will never be without risk, but we continue to work 

to ensure that when humans travel to space, nothing has been left undone to 

make them as safe as possible.”

An excerpt from a message from NASA Administrator 

Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Feb.1, 2013

“From our orbital vantage point, we observe an Earth 

without borders, full of peace, beauty, and magnificence, and 

we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless 

world as we see it and strive to live as one in peace.”

—William (Willie) Cameron McCool

Michael Anderson

Payload Commander

David Brown

Mission Specialist

William McCool

Pilot

Kalpana Chawla

Mission Specialist

Rick Husband

Commander

Ilan Ramon

Payload Specialist

Laurel Clark

Mission Specialist

Remembering Columbia
Why an NESC? In the 

summer of 2003, a vision 

of what the new NASA 

Engineering and Safety 

Center might look like was 

coming into focus. The 

Columbia Shuttle accident, 

which had occurred just 

a few months earlier, was 

still under investigation, 

but development of the 

NESC, designed to help 

keep such an accident 

from happening again, was 

already underway. 

“The Columbia Accident 

Investigation Board (CAIB) hadn’t finished its final report, but 

we were already getting some hints as to some of the things 

they were worried about,” remembers Bryan O’Connor, 

NASA’s retired Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance and 

former Shuttle astronaut. Concerns were being brought 

to light that the resources, skills, and capabilities to offer 

the Shuttle Program a second perspective on difficult 

technical problems, like those experienced by Columbia, 

wasn’t available. “That’s when we started thinking about 

the NESC, where it should be appropriately organized, and 

what it should do,” he says. 

Tasked by then NASA 

Administrator Sean O’Keefe, 

O’Connor and a small team 

explored ways the NESC

could bring to bear that muchneeded second perspective. 

They studied safety and 

engineering processes already 

in place at NASA Centers and 

looked outside the Agency 

to other organizations with 

strong safety and engineering 

programs, such as the U.S. 

Navy. As ideas were distilled,

the concept of an organization 

with an independent technical 

capability started to emerge. 

“We needed independent testing and analysis work to solve 

tough engineering problems,” says O’Connor. 

With that basic concept, the NESC was formed. There were 

still obstacles to overcome, such as funding and assuring 

NASA Centers that a separate organization focused on 

independent test and analysis wouldn’t result in fewer 

resources for them. As those larger issues were resolved, 

O’Connor and the team narrowed in on the finer details and 

pulled together the engineering team that would bring the 

NESC concept to life.

In 2003 NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe announces plans to form the 

NESC at Langley Research Center.

Our Story

Sometimes looking back can be as important as 

looking forward. And on its 10th anniversary, the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) has the 

rare opportunity to do both. A decade ago, the NESC 

was being organized in the wake of the Shuttle 

Columbia accident. Though tremendous strides 

have been made to learn and grow from that 

tragedy, paying tribute and taking time to 

remember the Columbia crew is what instills 

humility and at the same time, inspires vigilance 

and a continued dedication to minimizing the 

risks inherent to space flight. 

“I think that having friends and colleagues who were on 

the crews of both Challenger and Columbia certainly 

focuses you — that you need to do everything you can 

do to make sure spaceflight is as safe as it can be,” says 

NESC Director Ralph Roe, Jr. “It’s always going to be 

high risk, but we want to ensure we’re doing everything 

we can to make it as safe as possible and not falling 

back into bad habits or cultures. Everyone who 

went through those experiences is changed in 

some way, and our whole organization was 

created to help prevent these things from ever 

happening again.” 

As the NESC recounts its 2013 technical 

activities and looks to its future role at NASA, those 

who have worked with the organization also recall the 

story of why and how the NESC came to be, and the 

reason why they never quit striving for excellence in 

engineering and safety.

Dr. Michael Ryschkewitsch, NASA Chief Engineer 

2
Developing the NESC model

The team needed a model for how the new organization 

would operate, and ultimately chose an already proven 

method for tackling tough challenges – the tiger team. “It’s 

a very simple model,” says NESC Director Ralph Roe, Jr., 

who in 2003 was the Manager of the Space Shuttle Vehicle 

Engineering Office. Typically a tiger team is put into motion 

after a catastrophic event to figure out what went wrong and 

find resolutions. “During those times we bring the best and 

brightest together and go solve that particular problem,” 

says Roe. “But instead of waiting for that catastrophic 

event to occur, we wanted to institutionalize that tiger team 

model and have the best and brightest ready to support a 

program, before a problem became catastrophic.”

To build that model, the NESC had to convince NASA’s top 

engineers to come onboard. “We knew we had to focus on 

having the best available engineering skills from across the 

Agency,” says Roe. Offering senior grade positions was a 

start, as well as letting engineers reside at their respective 

Centers without having to move to NASA Langley. 

Another feature of the NESC model would be a 2- to 5-year 

rotation for engineers, rather than a permanent position in 

the NESC. “It’s been beneficial for both sides. We’ve been 

able to get some of the best engineers in their disciplines, 

and when the Centers get them back, they’ve got a broader 

perspective they wouldn’t have had otherwise,” says Roe. 

To prevent the new organization from becoming insular, 

as the CAIB noted with the Shuttle Program, the NESC 

would include members from industry, academia, and 

other government agencies, so as to avoid NASA-only 

perspectives. “Roughly 30% of our matrixed teams are 

from outside the Agency,” Roe says. “That was important.” 

Once established, the NESC could start pulling together 

assessment teams with the perfect mix of technical expertise 

to tackle any problem. But ensuring those individuals came 

together as a cohesive team was yet another challenge. 

“This model works because we spend a good deal of time 

working on personal relationships,” Roe says. “We work 

hard to build trust and an open environment so that when 

we work a difficult problem, we can debate and argue 

and discuss things openly. When you bring together folks 

with different backgrounds, it takes a while to develop a 

common language, but once you do, you ultimately end up 

with better solutions because you leverage those different 

backgrounds and experiences. That’s the real benefit 

of bringing together this technically diverse group. It’s a 

challenge, but the benefit is so great, it’s worth the effort 

that goes into it.” 

Much of the NESC’s early assessment work was 

concentrated on the Shuttle Program. “It was right after 

the accident investigation, so our focus was certainly 

on helping shuttle return to flight,” says Roe. But as the 

Shuttle Program began to wind down, and confidence in the 

NESC model grew, a more diverse workload from across 

3

The NESC’s unique insignia has its roots in the early Mercury 

Program. “ ... I named my spacecraft Sigma Seven. Sigma, a

Greek symbol for the sum of the elements of an equation, stands 

for engineering excellence. That was my goal — engineering 

excellence. I would not settle for less ... ”

— Wally Schirra

The NESC logo

Continued next page

For the NESC, the Sigma 

also represents engineering 

excellence. While Wally Schirra’s 

spacecraft represented the 7 

Mercury astronauts, the 10 in the 

NESC insignia represents the 10 

NASA Centers. The NESC draws 

upon the resources of the entire 

Agency to ensure engineering 

excellence.

NESC Founding Principles

Over the last 10 years, the NESC has grown in the scope, 

diversity, and reach of its assessments. What has remained 

constant, however, is a continued focus on the fundamental 

principles that form the foundation of the NESC:

Perform Independent Test and Analysis

Provide independent test and analysis to offer a second, 

broader-focused perspective to some of NASA’s most 

challenging issues.

Leverage Expertise from Across the

Agency, Industry, and Academia

Pursue engineering excellence through technically diverse 

expertise from across the Agency, industry, and academia. 

Share Knowledge

Share the vast engineering knowledge gained in its

assessments with all who might benefit.

Recognize those who Demonstrate a

Commitment to a Strong Safety Culture

Recognize those who actively and unfailingly pursue and 

demonstrate a strong safety culture.

Learn and Lead

Serve in the NESC or on assessment teams for a

period of time and then rotate back to the Centers.
Centers and across programs started 

coming in. “Now there’s a relatively 

good distribution across all of NASA’s 

mission directorates,” Roe says. 

As the number of NESC technical 

activities grew, so did the engineering 

knowledge being generated from 

those assessments. Because capturing and sharing that knowledge 

would be key to preventing future 

problems, the NESC developed 

knowledge-share tactics, such as generating technical 

reports and bulletins, implementing an NESC Academy 

Website, and holding workshops and forums. The NESC 

also began adding early career engineers to its assessment 

teams. Paired with seasoned NASA experts, the next 

generation could get a jump start on climbing the learning 

curve, recognize more quickly the benefits of collaboration, 

and take away knowledge that would serve them throughout 

their profession. 

Today the NESC continues to accept about 50-60 requests 

annually. “Even with shuttle retirement, the workload has 

remained very consistent from year to year,” says Roe. 

Though its core team remains small, the NESC draws from 

a large pool of talent inside and outside the Agency every 

time it forms an assessment team. “That matrixed workforce 

has grown to about 700 engineers strong, 500 within the 

Agency and 200 outside the Agency. And the support 

we’ve been given by the Centers has been outstanding and 

instrumental to the success of the NESC.” The NESC also 

takes time to acknowledge those within that workforce who 

exhibit the strong safety culture that the NESC is trying to 

promote with awards that celebrate engineering excellence. 

The future of the NESC at NASA

As NASA looks to the future, Associate Administrator 

Robert Lightfoot sees the NESC’s role becoming even more 

crucial to mission success. “The NESC was established 

because of lessons we learned — very painful lessons 

learned as an Agency. We don’t want to lose that lesson. 

It’s part of our DNA now. If anything, we need to figure out 

how to make sure it is maintained,” says Lightfoot. “The 

NESC can bring to bear national expertise to any issue that 

we have. They’re not constrained 

by Center boundaries and Center 

walls. They just look for the best 

person in the Agency. And because 

they are more discipline rather than 

program related, they can come 

in with an independent view. The 

NESC provided us a structure and an 

avenue to open a dialogue.”

NASA Chief Engineer Dr. Michael 

Ryschkewitsch agrees. “The NESC 

has been both the mover and the 

forum for bringing alternate points 

of view to a problem. A central 

tenet of the NESC is to engage in open, 

passionate discussions, attacking ideas, 

attacking assumptions, and bringing 

alternate points of view with the goal of 

having all programs flying known, reliable 

systems — and that everybody does so 

in an environment of mutual respect,” he 

says. “It really strengthens what we do.” 

As a result, collaboration across Centers 

has increased. As more assessment 

teams come together to solve problems, 

relationships are fostered. It may be an unintended 

consequence of the NESC, but a welcome one, says 

Ryschkewitsch. “People get to know people across 

Centers. They can pick up a phone and talk with someone 

they worked with on a previous problem that brought good 

expertise to bear. NESC alumni have gone on to a lot of 

responsible positions, so they bring with them knowledge 

of having worked in cross-Agency teams and relationships. 

Having those relationships is absolutely essential.”

That atmosphere of collaboration wasn’t as common 10 

years ago as it is today, notes Terrence Wilcutt, NASA’s 

Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. “Sometimes, in 

NASA’s past, Centers would try to handle problems within 

their own boundaries. People would hesitate, maybe feeling 

that their Center should already have this expertise and 

should help themselves,” he says. “Going to an outside 

entity has bridged that gap — opened that door — and 

seeking outside help has encouraged collaboration. The 

NESC led the way on that.” 

“Now that we’ve done more than 500 technical assessments, 

the Centers can see the benefit of bringing experts from 

other Centers together to help solve problems,” adds 

Roe. “I think the CAIB was certainly right when they said 

the Shuttle Program was insular, but I think we’ve been 

instrumental in setting the example of Center collaboration 

and that has spread across the Agency.” 

“Now everyone knows to call the NESC,” Wilcutt says. 

“They’ll look at things in a cross-discipline manner. They’ll 

ask questions you never even thought of. To me, the NESC 

is a known place to go to get technical help on our toughest 

problems. That did not exist before.” 

“With deep space exploration and 

partnerships with commercial spacecraft programs in its future, NASA will 

continue to rely on the NESC to help 

minimize risk,” says Ryschkewitsch.

“As we get to the later stages of 

commercial crew, Space Launch 

System, and Orion, I see some very 

hard discussions about the details of 

design and whether this hardware is 

safe enough to fly. We’re also going to 

be in a very tight fiscal environment, 

which puts immense pressures on 

programs and projects. It’s essential 

4

’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13

70 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Total requests Shuttle-specific requests

NESC technical activities

Academia 7%

Industry 22%

NASA 63%

NESC’s Core 

Team 8%

The NESC extended team
for technical groups to have the NESC as a backstop.”

Lightfoot also depends on the NESC. “They are one of my 

go-to resources as soon as I see a crosscutting issue, a 

bigger issue than we can handle on our own,” he notes. 

“Knowing the NESC is there is so valuable.” 

Wilcutt concurs. “After the Columbia accident, technical 

issues were coming up during return to flight, and on every 

issue the NESC weighed in, giving everyone a level of 

comfort that we understood the risks involved. The NESC 

will continue to be involved. We insist on it. We depend on 

it. The tougher the problem, the more we depend on the 

NESC to come in and take a look at it. I love having experts 

to call on,” says Wilcutt. “That’s quite a gift.”

5

Safety & Mission

Assurance at Centers 3%

Program

Management 

18%

NESC 19%

Engineering & Scientific 

Organizations 45%

Anonymous 

1% 

Other NASA

Offices 3%

Office of Chief 

Engineer 2 %

Center 

Management 

2%

Office of Safety and

Mission Assurance 3%

External to Agency 4%

Sources of Accepted Requests: 

541 Total

All statistics as of October 31, 2013

Aeronautics Research

1%

Science

18%

Broad Agency/External

14%

Human Exploration

and Operations

66%

Space

Technology

1%

Accepted Requests: 541 Total
Our Extended NESC Team

6

Dr. Serena

Auñón, JSC

Performing Independent

Test and Analysis

Leveraging Agency Expertise
Assessing Risks of

Frangible Joint Designs

The Commercial Crew Program 

requested the NESC’s assistance in 

the evaluation of commercial partners’ 

frangible joints to provide confidence 

for their use in human spaceflight. 

Prior crewed spacecraft used other 

separation mechanisms including 

frangible nuts and bolts for stage 

separations. The NESC reviewed 

historical frangible joint designs, 

provided an estimate of the resources 

required to develop a frangible joint 

model, and planned an empirical test 

program for single mild detonating 

fuse highload frangible joint systems.

EMU Lithium Ion Battery Assessment 

The recent Boeing Dreamliner lithium ion battery fires have prompted 

the Agency to take a closer look at NASA’s own risk of a similar 

incident. In one such example, the International Space Station (ISS) 

Program requested that the NESC engage its Dreamliner Root Cause 

Investigation Support Team in an assessment of the ISS extravehicular 

mobility unit (EMU) batteries and charger system. This assessment 

focused on comparing the EMU and its charger to the list of 

potential contributing factors developed as a result of the Dreamliner 

investigation earlier this year.

Selecting Instrumentation

for ISS On-orbit NDE

Micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) 

impact damage is a significant threat 

to the International Space Station (ISS). 

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) instruments 

capable of assessing structural damage from 

MMOD impacts are currently not onboard the 

ISS. At the request of the ISS Program, the 

NESC evaluated a variety of NDE systems 

and recommended a phased array ultrasonic 

system for potential deployment aboard ISS. 

Evaluation criteria included the capability to 

assess hidden structural damage, ability of 

astronauts to use the system without prior 

NDE training, and engineering modifications 

that would be required to certify the instrument 

for spaceflight.

7

Mark Davis, DFRC 

Jared Dervan, MSFC Bill Benson, KSC Dr. Roamer Predmore, AMA

Veteran astronaut Shannon Walker evaluates an NDE 

system for potential use on ISS.

Example of frangible joint used for 

Max Launch Abort System.

An EMU battery bank with numerous individual cells shown 

in holding fixture with Kapton insulation.
Our Extended NESC Team

Use of Commercial Electronic

Parts in Safety-Critical Systems

The NESC assessed the use of commercial off-the-shelf 

(COTS) electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) 

components in safety-critical crewed spacecraft avionics 

systems. The reliability of COTS EEE parts, as compared to 

parts meeting the U.S. Military Standard, is controversial, as 

is the efficacy of box-level stress screening and qualification 

compared to part-level testing. Qualitative analysis by the 

NESC team indicated significant differences in reliability and 

safety assurance when comparing screened military grade 

and unscreened COTS EEE parts. To reduce mission risk, 

the NESC recommended the Commercial Crew Program 

require vehicle providers to develop and implement a topdown mission assurance program to address EEE parts 

derating, qualification, traceability, and counterfeit control; 

demonstrate how it mitigates the risks associated with 

EEE parts applications; and provide data supporting the 

effectiveness of the proposed screening approach ensuring 

part failure rates are adequately bounded and margins are 

clearly identified. 

Sensitivity of Mission Success

to Electronic Part Quality

The NESC performed a case study to assess the sensitivity of 

mission success to electronic part grade variation and redundancy 

as a function of mission duration. Mission durations assessed 

ranged from tens of minutes, i.e. duration of a launch to low 

Earth orbit, to a 6-month stay at the International Space Station. 

The results helped to identify and characterize benefits and 

risks of traditional and nontraditional approaches to screening, 

qualification, and architectural mitigation.

Independent Modeling and

Simulation for CCP EDL

Three Commercial Crew Program (CCP) companies 

are developing either capsule or lifting body crew 

transport vehicles. The NESC is developing a sustainable 

independent modeling and simulation capability to 

investigate entry, descent, and landing (EDL) issues 

on the three vehicles. The team created an integrated 

framework of models including atmospheric entry; 

thermal heating; aerodynamic uncertainties; vehicle 

stability and control; and capsule parachute inflation.

The team first built generic capsule and lifting body models 

and conducted multiple degrees of freedom Monte 

Carlo flight simulations from entry to landing and is now 

developing models specific to each of the three vehicles. 

By developing relationships with company personnel 

and by proactively developing independent models, the 

team will be positioned to conduct independent analyses 

throughout the vehicles’ life cycles.

8

Ed Devine, ATK

R. James “Jim” Lanzi, WFF Tim Jett (left) and Chip Moore, MSFC

Jeremy Shidner, AMA, is a member of the NESC EDL Team.

Commercial electronic parts in plastic packaging.
ISS Simplified Docking System

The International Space Station (ISS) Program Manager 

requested that the NESC participate on an independent 

reliability assessment of the low impact docking system 

(LIDS) that will be integrated onto ISS and to review 

other proposed simplified docking systems. The team 

conducted several technical interchange meetings with the 

LIDS engineers as well as with the contractors proposing 

simplified docking system alternatives. Reviews of 

analyses, trade studies, and hardware test data provided 

the support for a team recommendation that resulted in a 

change in direction to a lower cost and complexity system 

without compromising performance. 

Collaboration on NDE of

Impacted Composite Structures

A commercial partner requested the NESC’s assistance 

in evaluating alternate nondestructive evaluation (NDE) 

techniques for inspection of composite structures that 

may be used in reusable space vehicles. Ultrasonic 

techniques are currently baselined by the partner for 

detecting and quantifying impact 

damage to assess the health of the 

space vehicle for subsequent flights. 

The NESC is investigating the capability 

of additional NDE techniques including 

flash thermography and computed 

tomography to determine damage levels 

in several impacted carbon composite 

samples provided by the partner.

9

Dr. Timothy Krantz, GRC

Tom Irvine,

Dynamic

Concepts Inc.

Dr. Phillip Tang, KSC Dr. Tannen VanZwieten, MSFC

Thermal image of a defect calibration 

standard illustrating impact, delamination, 

and core separation damage types 

(above); LaRC Automated Thermography 

Scanner (left).

Illustration of a simplified low-impact docking system.
Our Extended NESC Team

Launch Vehicle Explosion Model Evaluation

The blast overpressure, heat, and fragmentation environment 

produced by a launch vehicle catastrophic failure is an 

important safety consideration in spacecraft design. 

Knowledge gained about these accident environments 

can be factored into crew capsule integrity and strength 

requirements and help to determine the reaction time and 

separation distance the escape system must provide to keep 

the crew safe. The NESC has combined existing accident 

and test program databases into a single, comprehensive 

environments database that includes several new sets of 

relevant launch vehicle accident environment data. This 

database, with over 5,800 records, has been developed 

to facilitate the application of statistical analysis tools to 

better understand the most likely environments produced 

by catastrophic launch vehicle failures for human-rated 

systems. 

Relative Navigation Rendezvous 

Sensor DTO Performance Evaluation

Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors perform 

critical rendezvous relative navigation (RelNav) sensing 

for spacecraft proximity operations and are baselined for 

use on several upcoming missions. The NESC performed 

an assessment to quantitatively evaluate the performance 

of three LIDAR rendezvous sensors: the Sensor Test for 

Orion RelNav Risk Mitigation Vision Navigation Sensor, 

DragonEye, and Triangulation and LIDAR. These sensors 

were flown as space shuttle development test objectives 

(DTOs) from 2009-2011. An independent, statistically based 

analysis of the DTO data was performed, and each sensor’s 

performance was summarized relative to its individual DTO 

performance specifications. As a result, NASA improved its 

posture as a smart buyer for future LIDAR RelNav sensors 

by understanding each sensor’s hardware and software 

functionality and by gaining an improved definition of LIDAR 

sensor performance/functional requirements.

10

Dr. John Thesken (left) and Eric Baker, GRC Doug Wells, MSFC

Lawrence Green, LaRC

Mike Mendenhall, 

Nielsen Engineering 

and Research

Illustration of KSC’s Pad 39A reconfigured to support a number of 

heavy-lift launch vehicles.

LIDAR-sensed intensity image 

of ISS docking adaptor.

LIDAR-sensed closeup

of ISS adaptor.

LIDAR sensors

LIDAR sensor location in orbiter payload bay.
Phase II MPCV Thermal

Protection System Margin Study

After completing an initial Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (MPCV) heat shield reliability analysis, a partnered 

NESC-MPCV Phase II Study was initiated to update the 

reliability model using new arc jet and material property 

test data and an updated ablation analysis model. An 

analytical tool using Bayesian probability techniques was 

developed to assist in prioritizing testing, analyses, and 

model refinement for efficient resource utilization. Design 

of experiments techniques were employed to assist in the 

development of an efficient arc jet test matrix. Elements of 

the reliability process were utilized to formulate a design for 

heat shield sizing based on probabilistic modeling of the 

predicted reliability of several options.

11

Dr. Daniel Dvorak, JPL

Ratnakumar 

Bugga, JPL

Elmain Martinez, JPL Joe Gasbarre, LaRC

Illustration of the Orion MPCV crew module during reentry.
Our Extended NESC Team

MPCV CM/SM Spring Strut Vibration Testing

Fluids, data signals, and electrical power are transferred 

between the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) crew 

module (CM) and service module (SM) via an external 

umbilical driven from the CM by dual-spring struts. To reduce 

program risk, the NESC, working with Lockheed Martin, 

performed qualification-level vibration and performance 

tests on a spring strut development unit and ultimately 

uncovered issues that would not have been identified until 

strut qualification. Based on the test results and a followon failure investigation, corrective actions were identified 

and implemented by the MPCV Program for the upcoming 

Exploration Flight Test-1, and additional recommendations 

and best practices in areas of design, analysis, test, and 

workmanship were provided to the MPCV Program for 

future design iterations.

CAD Tools to Support Human

Factors Design Teams

The NESC is developing computer-aided design (CAD) 

tools to support human factors analyses. Working in the 

Virtual Environments Lab at MSFC, the assessment team 

is in the early stages of developing a database of human 

model primitives to be used in creating virtual simulations 

for human factors analyses of launch vehicle ground 

processing. Primitives are basic postures and motions 

that humans use to perform common ground processing 

tasks. Assessment objectives include improving model 

reliability and enhancing the appearance of human models 

in virtual environments. Motion capture technology is used 

to record human movements for integration into the virtual 

environment. The database also will include images, 

anthropometric data, and statistical analyses of lower back 

strain and lifting limits. 

12

Dr. Kenny Elliott, LaRC Samantha Fore, KSC Dr. Kenneth Lebsock, Orbital Sciences Corp.

Michael Bay,

Bay Engineering

Dual shaker tables

SM side

C/M umbilical 

side

CM-SM umbilical 

spring strut

The Virtual Environments Lab Team prepares for a motion capture 

session. From left: Mark Blasingame, Jason Quick (seated), Caitlyn 

Durham, Clay Robertson, Victoria Garcia, Trey Perry (kneeling), and

Dr. Mariea Dunn Jackson, assessment lead.

CM-SM umbilical spring strut installed in dual shaker test configuration.
Flight Testing of the SLS Launch

Vehicle Adaptive Control Algorithm

Augmenting Adaptive Control (AAC) is intended to improve robustness and 

performance for the Space Launch System (SLS) by adapting the flight control 

system to unexpected environments or variations in launch vehicle dynamics. 

Test experience with this new AAC algorithm reduces the risk of its inclusion 

in the SLS vehicle’s flight control system and demonstrates performance of 

the algorithm in a relevant environment. The F/A-18 Full-Scale Advanced 

Systems Testbed aircraft at DFRC provided a suitable flight environment and the 

opportunity for multiple test runs. Flight tests will provide findings in time to be 

incorporated into the third SLS Design and Analysis Cycle. 

Independent Modeling and Simulation for Exploration Systems

The NESC has assembled a multi-Center team to develop 

independent models for Human Exploration Office 

Programs: the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle, and Ground Systems Development 

and Operations Programs. The purpose of this effort is 

to independently identify or corroborate technical issues 

that occur within the highly integrated nature of these 

new systems and enable the NESC to be ready to provide 

independent assessments and technical analyses as issues 

arise. The NESC completed 3 degree of freedom (3-DOF) 

and 6-DOF simulations of the SLS Design Analysis Cycle 2 

configuration with guidance for the nominal trajectory, and 

the team is currently working to add slosh and flex modeling 

and dispersions for Monte Carlo analyses.

13

Jody Woods, SSC Hung Pham, JPL Dr. Norm Knight, General Dynamics

Parachute 

Models

Mass

Properties

Aerodynamics &

Aerothermodynamics

SLS

Earth 

Atmosphere 

Models

Thermal Protection

Systems

Propulsion

Planet Model

(gravity & topographic) Existing and new models of SLS 

systems and environments will be 

incorporated into an independent 

simulation of SLS operations.

The DFRC F/A-18 is a test bed used 

to mature and refine the SLS adaptive

control algorithm.
Our Extended NESC Team

Pyroshock Characterization

of Composite Materials

The NESC initiated a developmental study 

seeking to quantify the impact various material 

parameters have on the structural response 

of a composite structure in a pyroshock 

environment. Data generated from a test series 

using design of experiments methods are 

evaluated using statistical analysis to identify 

to what extent various composite material 

parameters influence a flat composite panel’s 

structural response to shock-induced loading. 

The results from these tests will aid in future 

large-scale testing by eliminating insignificant 

parameters and contributing to the development 

of empirical scaling methods for composite 

structures’ response to shock-induced loading.

MMOD Design and Analysis Improvements

The NESC partnered with the JSC Human Exploration Science Office 

to improve micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) damage 

predictions and risk assessments for the International Space Station, 

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, and other spacecraft. The team 

used finite element model simulations and hypervelocity impact 

testing to produce updated ballistic limit equations (used to define 

MMOD shield effectiveness) that incorporated the effects of higher 

density MMOD particles than previously assessed. The team also 

tested new shield configurations that combined MMOD and radiation 

protection and tested shields with a thermoplastic film layer that have 

the ability to self-heal MMOD penetrations.

Two views are shown of a multilayered shield test target after

impact from a 2.80 mm diameter aluminum particle traveling 

7.38 km/s. The innermost layer of the shield was not penetrated,

indicating a pass for this test.

14

Peter Berg, SGT Inc.

Julie Foster, JPL

Dan Rascoe, JPL

Dr. Danny Allgood, SSC

(From left) Brian Collins, James Newton, and Phillip Thompson complete fabrication of a 

composite panel at MSFC for pyroshock testing. 
Model-Based Systems Engineering of the Exploration Systems Interfaces

Lessons learned in model preparation, build processes, 

and tool usage, which were gained during previous NESC 

software studies, have been applied to the Exploration 

Systems Development (ESD) interfaces. Space Launch 

System (SLS) and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) 

teams have been modeling internal interfaces, and the NESC 

is assessing the modeling of the interfaces between SLS, 

MPCV, and Ground Systems Development and Operations 

(GSDO) components using model-based systems engineering 

techniques. Guided by requirements and interface documents, 

the NESC team is modeling the distribution of flight, health, 

and safety information between GSDO, MPCV, and SLS and 

how SLS internally processes the data. Also modeled are the 

commands from GSDO/MPCV to SLS, including distribution 

of command responses. Using modeling tools, discrepancies 

and gaps in and between the document sets have been 

identified. This work will help determine what interfaces and 

expected behaviors will be needed by ESD.

15

Dr. Bill Winfree, LaRC

Dr. Christopher 

DellaCorte, GRC

Robert Powers, JPL

Activity and process diagram for the SLS-MPCV SysML model design.
Our Extended NESC Team

Transonic Shock Reflections 

in SLS Wind Tunnel Testing

To predict the performance of NASA’s Space Launch 

System (SLS) during ascent, engineers measure the 

aerodynamic forces on the vehicle using wind tunnel testing. 

At transonic and supersonic speeds, the vehicle generates 

shock waves that can reflect off wind tunnel walls. If these 

waves reflect back and impact the model, they can cause 

inaccuracies in the prediction of aerodynamic forces on 

the vehicle. SLS engineers encountered these reflections 

in their original testing of the vehicle. The NESC supported 

installation and testing of the SLS model in a much larger 

wind tunnel to reduce the effect of these reflections and 

better deduce the impact of these reflections on the original 

aerodynamic data.

Qualification of Parachutes 

for High Altitude Deployments 

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program initially 

planned to qualify the capsule parachute assembly system 

(CPAS) drogue parachutes for high altitude contingency 

deployment by analysis using models validated with low 

altitude data, based on an early crew module (CM) stability 

estimate. The NESC team evaluated the simulation models 

and found issues that gave conservative estimates of 

CM stability above the nominal deployment altitude. The 

program updated the model and is reevaluating the need 

for testing above nominal parachute deployment altitudes. 

Like all working parachute models in use, many parameters 

are empirical and so predictions beyond their validated 

range would have uncharacterized uncertainty. The NESC 

team’s principal recommendation was to conduct high 

altitude aircraft air drops to qualify CPAS to as high an 

altitude as practicable. 

16

Dr. Henning Leidecker, GSFC

Timothy Risch, 

DFRC

Courtney Flugstad, KSC Alden Mackey, AMA 

Wind tunnel shock reflection testing in LaRC’s Transonic Dynamics

Tunnel helped engineers evaluate the effect of shock reflections on SLS

ascent performance predictions.

Parachute test 

vehicle with reefed 

dual drogues.
Space Launch System Booster

Interface Loads Analysis

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) uses solid rocket 

boosters to overcome high aerodynamic and inertial forces 

during launch. The interaction of these boosters with the 

SLS main engine core can produce highly unsteady buffet 

loads on both the core and booster stages, resulting in 

design decisions that can increase the weight of the vehicle. 

Previously, these buffet loads could only be evaluated

using costly wind tunnel and flight tests. The NESC is 

employing state-of-the-art computational aerodynamics 

design tools to evaluate and reduce these interface loads. 

Wind tunnel tests of candidate shapes showing the greatest 

potential for load reduction will be conducted to verify the 

computational designs.

Liquid Engine Combustion

Stability Analysis

The NESC has undertaken a task to advance the predictive 

capability of tools being used to assess Space Launch 

System (SLS) liquid engine stability. State-of-the-practice 

engineering combustion stability tools are limited by 

empirically based embedded models and inputs resulting 

in mostly postdictive results. These limitations create 

significant uncertainties in stability assessments leading 

to increased engine development time and cost. State-ofthe-art computational fluid dynamics injector simulations 

are being executed to upgrade key aspects of the 

engineering stability assessment tools. These improved 

tools and methodology will enable confident identification 

of combustion instabilities leading to timely mitigation. The 

ultimate result will be reduced SLS engine development 

costs and time.

17

Dr. Louise Struzenberg, MSFC Rick Russell, KSC David Ordway, MSFC

Nicolas

Rouquette, JPL

SLS advanced

booster concept

SLS baseline

Region of high buffet 

fluctuating pressure

Simulation of unsteady flame 

development in the chamber 

of a gaseous oxygen-rocket 

propellant (RP-1) gas-centered 

swirl coaxial injector element. 

The images are of different cuts 

through the domain at the same 

instant in time.

Design techniques employing computational aerodynamics indicate that 

a canted booster nose cone geometry reduces aerodynamic buffet loads 

on the SLS.
Our Extended NESC Team

Conceptual T-0 stabilizer for SLS Block 1.

SLS Main Engine Startup Acoustics

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) will use the Space 

Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) to power its core stage, but the 

number, orientation, and relative location of the engines are 

different from those used on the Space Shuttle Program. 

The acoustics generated in the SSME nozzles at startup 

are significant and can damage nearby vehicle components 

and launch pad hardware. The NESC is employing a 

new subscale ground testing approach to investigate the 

acoustic environments generated by the SSMEs in their SLS 

configuration. This testing will refine the early estimates of 

the SLS launch acoustic environment and may reduce the 

number of large-scale tests needed to qualify various SLS 

components for the vehicle’s launch acoustic environment.

SLS T-0 Vehicle Stabilization

Loads Evaluation

The NESC performed an independent evaluation of the 

Space Launch System (SLS) T-0 vehicle stabilization loads 

at the request of the SLS Program. During SLS liftoff loads 

analysis, gapping (uplift) was noted at the joints between 

the vehicle support system (VSS) posts and the solid rocket 

booster aft skirts. This nonlinear behavior invalidated the 

respective load cases. The NESC team reviewed gapping 

and structural margin mitigation options and SLS loads 

models and analyses. The team concluded that a T-0 

stabilizer between the mobile launcher tower and the SLS 

core stage provides the best option to mitigate VSS joint 

gapping and structural margin issues.

18

Dr. Pappu Murthy, GRC (Left to right) Anthony Carden, ERC Inc.; Darin Franzoni, Jacobs Technology; and Harold Beeson, WSTF Amri Hernandez-Pellerano, GSFC

Subscale SSME testing at the University of Texas at Austin will provide 

data to help engineers evaluate engine startup acoustics for the SLS.
Orion Crew Module Impact

Attenuation System Assessment

The NESC is assessing the impact of a proposed change to the 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Crew Impact Attenuation 

System (CIAS). Currently, crew seats are mounted to an 

energy-attenuating pallet that is designed to stroke and limit 

the loads that are transferred to the crew members. As part 

of the MPCV mass-reduction effort, a proposal was made to 

delete the CIAS pallet and substitute it with individual seat 

attenuation. The primary contractor has computed the Brinkley 

Dynamic Response criteria for a set of nominal and off-nominal 

landing conditions and has determined that the proposed 

design complies with NASA Human System Integration 

Requirements. The NESC will model and analyze the response 

of a 50th-percentile anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) to 

nominal and off-nominal landing accelerations, including 

potential flail and body movements. These results will provide 

valuable criteria for evaluating MPCV occupant safety. 

Spin Forming Crew Module

Metallic Aft Bulkhead and Cone

The NESC will evaluate spin forming as a technique that 

may reduce Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle risk by simplifying 

the fabrication of the Orion crew module (CM) aft pressure 

vessel bulkhead and cone. The spin forming process can 

produce a single-piece aluminum alloy aft bulkhead and 

a single-piece cone resulting in the elimination of the nine 

major welds from the cone required for the current multiplepiece construction. Objectives of the two-part study will be 

to spin form an aft bulkhead pathfinder and develop a firstof-a-kind thick-component (6 inches) spin forming process 

for the manufacture of a CM cone.

19

Dr. Mary Kaiser, ARC Chad Hastings (left) and Phillip Thompson, MSFC Dr. Charles Lawrence, GRC

Cone

Aft bulkhead

The Hybrid III ATD is shown in a proposed MPCV seat. Seat accelerations from the LS-DYNA landing model are used to drive the seat motions 

to compute the ATD responses.

Pressure vessel component of CM.
Our Extended NESC Team

Evaluation of Solar Electric

Propulsion Alternatives

Future deep space NASA missions, such as the Asteroid 

Retrieval Mission (ARM), will require the use of advanced 

solar electric propulsion (SEP) technologies to allow for 

larger payloads. The NESC conducted an independent 

study of the SEP component of the ARM. The NESC 

reviewed the underlying assumptions used in the baseline 

ARM SEP concept study and examined alternative 

propulsion approaches for achieving the mission. 

20

Vacuum chamber ground testing of Ad Astra’s VX-200 Electric Propulsion 

Thruster with argon propellant.

Richard Larson, DFRC

Richard Wear, SSC Dr. Russell “Buzz” Wincheski, LaRC Tom Modlin, Modlin Aerospace

Ad Astra
Hubble Space Telescope

Attitude Observer Anomaly 

Hubble Space Telescope (HST) operations have been 

impacted by an anomaly called the Attitude Observer 

Anomaly (AOA). During guide star acquisitions, the fine 

guidance sensor has occasionally lost lock on the guide star, 

threatening a potential loss of science. The NESC Guidance, 

Navigation, and Control Technical Discipline Team has 

been supporting the HST Project in understanding and 

mitigating the AOA, believed to be linked to gyroscope flex 

lead corrosion. The NESC performed independent flex lead 

corrosion experiments, updated gyroscope life predictions 

accounting for variable gyroscope thermal conditions, and 

is pursuing development of a new multidisciplinary model of 

the gyroscope flex lead corrosion. The NESC also provided 

gyroscope engineering subject matter experts from outside 

NASA to support the resolution of this anomaly.

After a dual-wheel filter wheel mechanism in the fine 

guidance sensor on the James Webb Space Telescope 

(JWST) failed its life test, the NESC was requested to 

provide mechanical systems support for the Failure Review 

Board. Review of the drawings, assembly procedures, 

and life test hardware revealed root causes, which were 

improperly applied dry film lubricant on gears, gearheads 

not properly designed for dry lubrication, no gearhead runin and clean-out steps, and improper gear motor installation 

in the dual wheel. New gear motors and adapters designed 

to correct these issues are currently being manufactured 

for a life test.

JWST Fine Guidance Sensor Gear 

Motor Anomaly Investigation

21

Tom Horvath, LaRC Dr. J. Russell Carpenter, GSFC Terry Bradford, MSFC

Pupil wheel 

gear motor

Filter wheel 

gear motor

JWST dual-wheel filter wheel mechanism.

 HST gyroscope.
Our Extended NESC Team

Combustion Instability

 in Black Brant Motors

The Black Brant motor has a history of combustion 

instability during flight. This assessment used combustionresponse data generated by the Naval Air Warfare Center 

to update the combustion-response characteristics of 

two flown Black Brant motor propellant formulations: Mk1 

(Chinese ammonium perchlorate (AP)) and Mk2 (United 

States-manufactured AP). The test data indicate that both 

formulations have high response characteristics, with the 

Mk1 propellant being more responsive. Observations from 

Black Brant flights indicate instability initiation is related to 

slag expulsion from the motor. 

Chandra X-Ray Observatory

COPV Risk Assessment

The Chandra X-Ray Observatory Project requested an 

evaluation of an increased thermal environment on a composite 

overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) propellant tank due to 

degraded multilayer insulation and a change in spacecraft 

attitude. The review focused on COPV stress rupture and 

aluminum liner corrosion and crack growth failure modes. The 

carbon fiber/epoxy COPV was assessed to have a low stress 

rupture risk. However, hydrazine compatibility data were 

insufficient to identify issues with the liner surface corrosion, 

stress corrosion cracking, and environmentally assisted crack 

growth. The NESC recommended a test plan be developed 

to characterize the liner when exposed to hydrazine in the 

expected pressure, temperature, and exposure duration.

22

Illustration of Chandra X-Ray Observatory.

Kim Simpson, JPL 

Dr. Floyd Spencer, 

Sfhire

Everett Miller-Smith, MSFC

Bernard “Dov” Adelstein, ARC

The Black Brant sounding rocket motor, operational since the 1960s, is 

the workhorse of NASA’s Sounding Rocket Program.
Cassini Plasma Spectrometer Short

Circuit Anomaly Investigation

The solid-state overcurrent protection device located on the 

Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) tripped, resulting in the 

loss of the instrument. The dynamic event signature leading up 

to the trip prompted the Cassini Project to request an NESC 

investigation. The NESC explored shorting scenarios and 

verified them via telemetry sequence re-creation using circuit 

models. The team developed possible root causes, evaluated 

drawings, and conducted lab testing to further develop an 

understanding of the failure modes. These activities allowed 

the team to characterize the risk of reactivating CAPS for the 

project and presented operational risk mitigation measures 

should the project consider reactivation.

ASRG Heater Head Critical Flaw Analysis

The NESC provided technical expertise to the Advanced 

Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) Project to establish 

flight hardware acceptance criteria for the heater head 

component. Metallic oxides that form in the heater head 

material during the casting process create embedded flaws 

that present a risk of fatigue failure during dynamic stress 

environments like transportation, launch, landing, and 

nominal long-term operation. The NESC determined that the 

traditional analytical methods to predict maximum allowable 

flaw size were not appropriate due to the thin heater head 

wall thickness. The NESC provided technical assistance to 

develop an empirical method to predict component life and 

performed independent testing to characterize material 

properties. The test program culminated in new acceptance 

criteria to screen out discrepant hardware.

23

David Coote, SSC Omar Torres, LaRC

Dr. Yuan Chen, LaRC

Dr. Sotiris Kellas, LaRC

The Advanced Stirling Converter within the ASRG.

Pat Mokashi/Southwest Research Institute

Cassini Plasma Spectrometer Instrument flight hardware. 


Our Extended NESC Team

Solar Probe Plus Upper

Stage Performance Assessment

The Solar Probe Plus mission, being performed by the Johns 

Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), is 

scheduled for launch in 2018 and will conduct key scientific 

research of the sun. This mission is highly mass-constrained, 

and a new upper stage, the STAR 48GXV, is under development 

to provide the high-energy trajectory required for the desired 

solar orbit. The NESC conducted an independent assessment 

of the STAR 48GXV performance including flight stability, 

control authority, and trajectory insertion accuracy. The 

results are being used by APL to refine the design to provide 

the required performance while minimizing mass and cost.

Hubble Space Telescope

Observatory System Reliability 

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Program requested 

an evaluation of the current reliability model used to 

determine critical system component reliability as a function 

of time. Their current reliability model predicts a chance 

of one or more major component failures from present 

time through the telescope’s predicted end-of-life. The 

program believes the current model does not represent the 

observatory configuration and/or contains overly conservative 

assumptions. The reliabilities of key subsystems are not 

adequately modeled due to repairs or improved knowledge, 

and some subsystems have outperformed expectations. 

The NESC assembled independent subject matter experts 

knowledgeable in reliability modeling and HST subsystems to 

perform an independent evaluation. 

26

Dave Dawicke, AS&M Inc. Dr. Jim Ross, ARC Dr. John Graf, PE, JSC

Illustration of the Solar Probe Plus.

The Hubble Space Telescope after the final servicing mission in 2009.
Assessment of Reaction Wheel

Performance on NASA Missions

Reaction wheel assemblies (RWAs) are used to orient and 

stabilize spacecraft and point scientific instruments. The 

Kepler spacecraft recently suffered the loss of two of its four 

RWAs, which is now preventing it from performing its primary 

mission to identify Earth-like planets. As a result of these 

failures and those on other spacecraft, the NESC formed a 

team of mechanical systems and guidance, navigation, and 

control experts from across NASA and industry with the goals 

of identifying operational best practices promoting long RWA 

life and identifying actions that might be employed to recover 

RWAs in distress. Hybrid operations, where fewer than the 

nominal number of RWAs are available, will be considered to 

extend mission life. A review of various commercially available 

RWA designs will also be performed.

Kepler Spacecraft Hybrid

Attitude Control Concepts Evaluation

At the request of the Science Mission Directorate, the 

NESC led the NASA Spacecraft Hybrid Control Workshop 

with participants from NASA, JPL, industry, and nonprofit 

laboratories. Shortly after the workshop, the second of four 

reaction wheels aboard the Kepler spacecraft failed, causing 

the loss of its primary mission to search for Earth-like planets. 

The NESC was requested to support the Kepler Project with 

the identification, development, and technical evaluation 

of hybrid attitude control concepts, where attitude control 

is provided using thrusters in concert with the remaining 

operational reaction wheels. This could potentially lead to a 

repurposed Kepler science mission using the two remaining 

nominally functioning reaction wheels. 

27

Dick Powell, AMA Dr. Judith Jeevarajan, JSC Albert Whittlesey, JPL

Solar panels Sun shade

Photometer

Onboard computers

Control thrusters

High gain antenna

Radiator

Reaction wheel #3

Reaction wheel #4

Diagram of the Kepler spacecraft showing the location of 

two of the four reaction wheels 

that control spacecraft pointing 

accuracy. Reaction wheel 4 

failed on May 11, 2013. 

Ball Aerospace and 

Technologies Corp.
Our Extended NESC Team

ELV Payload Pyrovalve Reliability

The NESC assessed parent-metal pyrotechnic-operated 

valves (pyrovalves) used on Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV)-

launched spacecraft such as the Mars Science Laboratory 

(MSL). The team concentrated on risk uncertainties and 

whether NASA Payload and Air Force Range Safety 

Command requirements for ELVs were satisfied when flying 

these valves. The team evaluated pyrovalve reliability in 

controlling hazardous gases and fluids and found that if the 

assessment design guidelines were followed, the pyrovalves 

would meet or exceed all applicable requirements. Based on 

these findings, the Air Force Space Range Safety Command 

approved the use of the MSL pyrovalve configuration on Mars 

2020 and future spacecraft launched by the ELV Program.

28

(Left to right) Steve Harvison, Andrew Prince, and Ben Davis, MSFC Bharat Chudasama, JPL Dr. Rebecca “Becky” MacKay, GRC

Launch of the MSL rover from 

Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station on an Atlas V ELV.

John Anderson (left) and Steve 

Woods (right) of WSTF discuss 

a pyrovalve stress analysis, 

performed to evaluate safety 

margins.
James Webb Space Telescope NIRSpec Microshutter Alternate Materials and Coatings

The NESC provided an independent assessment of the James 

Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Near Infrared Spectography 

(NIRSpec) microshutter subsystem life test results. The 

mechanism met the life requirement, but debris was observed 

during post-test inspection. The NESC team evaluated the 

effect of contamination on the instrument’s performance and 

conducted a series of life-cycle tests to determine when debris 

generation begins during the life of the unit. The test results led 

to a second phase assessment where the NESC performed a 

series of tests to evaluate alternate materials and coatings for 

the mechanism. Recommendations were provided to the JWST 

Project and implementation for the flight design is underway.

Asteroid Touch-and-Go Onboard Navigation Capability Assessment

The Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification 

Security – Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission is planned 

for 2016 to study an asteroid and return a sample to Earth. The 

OSIRIS-REx spacecraft will be required to perform a guided 

touch-and-go (TAG) approach to and engagement with the 

asteroid using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor 

as the primary navigational aid for the two critical checkpoint 

and matchpoint delta-V maneuvers. The spacecraft will use 

an optical navigation natural feature tracking (NFT) backup 

to the baseline LIDAR guided TAG. This system employs an 

NFT scheme that uses imagery data of the asteroid surface 

to map specific natural features and identify optimal sampling 

sites. Members of the NESC’s Autonomous Rendezvous and 

Docking Community of Practice will perform an independent 

assessment of the maturity of the NFT optical navigation 

capabilities and identify any technical gaps or weaknesses. 

29

Dr. Eugene Ungar, JSC (Left to right) Steve Hornung, MEI Technologies; Regor Saulsberry, WSTF; Steve 

McDougle, MEI Technologies; and Tony Carden, ERC, Inc. 

Davin Swanson,

The Aerospace

Corporation

De-orbit burn

Slew to inertially 

fixed attitude

LIDAR range check

LIDAR range 

threshold crossing Checkpoint burn

Matchpoint burn

TAG

To Earth

To sun

Terminator orbit plane 

(edge on) Rotation 

direction

Roller surface 

wear results 

from life-cycle 

testing.

AM02

97,800 Cyc

AM07

82,800 Cyc

AM04

96,000 Cyc

AM05

93,200 Cyc

AM15

90,100 Cyc

AM13

90,700 Cyc

TAG trajectory 

sequence

following the 

de-orbit

maneuver

with LIDAR

measurements.
Our Extended NESC Team

Development of an Autonomous Aerobraking Capability for NASA Missions

NASA uses aerobraking to reduce the fuel required to deliver 

a spacecraft into orbit around a planet or moon with an atmosphere. An NESC team has been developing the capability to 

allow the spacecraft to aerobrake autonomously, thus reducing risk and costs during aerobraking. Recent efforts focused 

on improving the Autonomous Aerobraking Development 

Software (AADS), conducting trade studies, and evaluating 

AADS performance. Results show that AADS is able to reproduce the safe aerobraking phases used for Mars Odyssey and 

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and that the AADS algorithms 

are ready to be considered for application to future missions 

that use aerobraking.

Carbon Fiber Strand Failure Characterization

Carbon fibers are used to provide tensile strength and 

structural integrity when used in an overwrap for a composite 

overwrapped pressure vessel. Failure mechanisms of graphite 

composite strands are not well understood because failures 

progress rapidly and individual carbon fibers are only 0.03 

inches in diameter. Tension failures are highly dynamic and 

occur without significant warning of impending failure. Plus, 

the test specimen is often destroyed in the failure process, 

leaving few clues. The NESC is using high-speed cameras 

and photogrammetry to locate failure initiation points along 

the strands. This technique successfully identified a localized 

high-strain region that developed shortly before failure. By 

reliably pinpointing failure initiation, damage areas, and failure 

progression can be better characterized.

30

Bass Redd, Nielsen Engineering and Research Jayanta Panda, ARC Dr. Immanuel Barshi, ARC

Roy Hampton, 

Owl Analytics, LLC

Autonomous

 changes 

at apoapsis 

enable

aerobraking.

Breaking graphite strand captured at 64,000 frames per second.
Modal Mass Acceleration Curve

Loads Analysis Methodology

The NESC initiated a knowledge capture task to document the 

Modal Mass Acceleration Curve (MMAC) loads methodology 

so that it could be available across NASA and industry. The 

MMAC was developed and in use at JPL for more than 25 years. 

It provides a bound for the acceleration a spacecraft mode 

may expect to see during launch. The maximum acceleration 

is a function of the mode’s effective mass and decreases with 

increasing mass. The MMAC can be developed from previous 

coupled loads analyses and is unique for each launch vehicle. 

In the MMAC loads analysis, the MMAC is used to provide a 

bound for each modal response. The physical loads are then 

obtained by the root-sum-square of response bounds for all 

modes of interest.

Development of Verification Data for Flight Simulations

Flight simulations are increasingly used to aid in design 

and flight prediction of aerospace vehicles. Independently 

developed tools are typically used to perform these 

simulations, and this independence provides valuable 

cross-checking between project partners. Sometimes the 

fundamental aspects of the simulation frameworks are 

implemented differently, which can lead to disagreement in 

predictions. This assessment will provide flight trajectories 

for simple aircraft and spacecraft models using several NASA 

simulation tools. These trajectories will serve as test cases for 

other simulation frameworks used by NASA and others and 

are expected to result in higher confidence in flight simulation 

predictions.

31

Tim Crumbley, MSFC

Ruth Amundsen, LaRC

(Left to right)

Curt Hanson, 

James Lee, 

and Chris 

Miller, DFRC

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

0 10 20 30

Roll rate, 

deg/s

Time in seconds

Sim 1

Sim 2

Sim 3

Sim 4

Sim 5

Representative Modal Mass Acceleration Curve.

Effective Mass (Kg)

Acceleration (G)

1 10 100 1000

100

10

1

Comparisons between 

five NASA simulations. 

The outlier simulation 

(Sim 3) was subsequently corrected and 

matched the others.
Our Extended NESC Team

ACCESS Flight Test Hazard Mitigation Assessment

The Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions 

(ACCESS) research team conducted tests on an instrumented 

Falcon 20 aircraft flying close behind a DC-8 aircraft at cruise 

altitude to evaluate airborne biofuels exhaust emission data. 

Knowing Falcon interaction with the DC-8 trailing vortices 

could have resulted in structural failure from wake vortex 

encounter or from loss of control, an NESC team assessed 

the Falcon structural failure risk. The team reviewed literature 

on exhaust and wake vortex evolution and lessons learned by 

other research teams, and also conducted high fidelity loads 

analyses and 6 degree of freedom trajectory simulations. 

Specific flight test hazard mitigation actions were identified, 

and the team made a primary recommendation to conduct 

pre-experiment flight tests dedicated to developing pilot 

proficiency in avoiding wake vortices.

Reducing Risk of Injury from Dynamic Loads

The design of future crew transportation systems introduces 

new challenges to protect crewmembers from injury due 

to dynamic loads. NASA’s Human Research Program 

requested an independent assessment of the research 

plan associated with spacecraft occupant protection. 

Assessment team members included experts in the fields 

of biodynamics and injury biomechanics from NASA, the 

National Highway Transportation Administration, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, and academia. Six main areas were 

reviewed: occupant protection, definition of acceptable 

risk, quantification of injury assessment reference values, 

identification and quantification of deconditioning factors, 

development of methodologies to allow vehicle design 

assessment, and identification of countermeasures.

32

Risk-of-injury factors.

Bruce Jackson, LaRC Susan Baggerman, JSC Jeremy Jacobs, JSC

Dr. Walter Reuter, 

Idaho National Lab.

View from Falcon 20 

approaching (left) and 

entering (right) DC-8 

exhaust contrail.
Feasibility Study to Investigate Dedicated Nano-Launcher for NASA Use

The NESC participated in a study that surveyed 13 

developmental nano-launcher systems to identify each 

system’s technical challenges. The study developed options 

for enabling one or more systems to successfully demonstrate 

the needed capabilities. The major observation was that while 

some companies have a reasonable prospect of meeting 

NASA’s cost and initial availability goals, these companies 

generally are unable to self-finance. However, a NASA-led 

open-architecture approach could provide a near-term, lowcost operational capability, maintain competition, and provide 

opportunities for NASA to assist small business entrants into 

this launcher segment.

33

David Gilmore, The Aerospace Corp. Rick Alena, ARC

(Left to right) Dr. Hon “Patrick” Chan, Allen Parker, Dr. Lance 

Richards, and Anthony Piazza, DFRC. 

Illustration of potential 

nano-launchers surveyed 

for NASA use.
W ith the aim of carrying astronauts well beyond near Earth 

orbit to rendezvous with asteroids, the Moon, or Mars, 

the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft 

has no room for extra weight. That is why the engineers and 

designers of NASA’s next-generation spacecraft are finding 

ways to optimize every single pound that is added to the 

vehicle and looking at every system for opportunities to shave 

unnecessary mass. “Mass affects your ability to execute the 

mission, how far you can go, how long you 

can stay, and how many people you can 

take,” says Ms. Julie Kramer White, Orion 

MPCV Chief Engineer.

One area the Orion MPCV Program felt 

could offer significant weight savings was 

the heat shield carrier structure. The carrier 

structure must hold the 16.4-ft diameter heat 

shield securely to the Orion spacecraft when 

faced with launch, reentry, and splashdown 

loads, and temperatures greater than 4,800° F. “The heat 

shield became the number one item slated for mass reduction 

activities,” says Kramer White. “Nearly 50 percent of mass 

reductions we achieve will come out of the heat shield. It’s 

very significant.”

In late August 2012, Kramer White requested the NESC 

develop some alternate designs to the structure, with the 

goal of reducing its overall mass by 25 percent or about 800 

pounds. 

“Because of how much weight was at stake, I thought the 

NESC was the ideal candidate for an independent look at how 

to get that mass out,” says Kramer White. “They have design, 

development, and build experience, and we needed to know 

that a design on paper would make it through to build and not 

gain a lot of weight. They were ideally situated to help us.” 

At that time, the baseline design, made of titanium with a 

composite carbon graphite skin, weighed in at over 3,000 

pounds. “It was a very agile design and could be easily 

manipulated and changed, but the Orion MPCV Program 

needed to know if it was the most mass-optimum design,” 

says Mr. Michael Kirsch, who led an NESC 

assessment team to work on alternative 

designs. The assessment team included 

members from industry, contractor partners, 

and NASA Centers including JSC, GSFC, 

LaRC, and MSFC. 

After studying Orion’s composite design, the 

NESC assessment team began developing 

several alternative concepts including 

designs that incorporated load sharing with 

the crew module backbone, replaced the existing wagon 

wheel stringer design with an H beam configuration, and 

switched the composite carbon graphite skin to a titanium 

orthogrid skin. 

After discussions with the Orion MPCV Program, the NESC 

team carried two designs forward for further refinement, and in 

early February 2013, down-selected to the titanium orthogrid 

option. “This design was already saving a little over 1,100 

pounds,” says Kirsch, about 300 pounds beyond the original 

800 pound goal. The NESC team began talking with vendors 

to determine the best manufacturing approach for the titanium 

orthogrid. 

Encouraged by weight savings realized by the NESC team’s 

34

LMCO

Conceptual titanium orthogrid heat shield 

carrier mounted to pressure vessel. 

Orion crew module for Exploration Flight Test-1. 

The NESC Proposes an Alternate Orion Heat Shield Carrier Structural Design
alternate design, the Orion baseline design was 

undergoing revisions as well and had significantly 

reduced its mass. So, in March 2013, the Orion MPCV 

Program asked for an apples-to-apples comparison 

between the revised baseline design and the NESC 

titanium orthogrid design. “For 10 weeks, the two 

designs were compared side by side, assumptions 

aligned, and adjustments made so that the two could 

be compared with a similar set of rules,” says Kirsch. 

By the end of May, the NESC design had reached

a 1,300 pound weight reduction and the baseline

design had undergone a significant weight loss as 

well — about 1,100 pounds. Weight savings, however, 

were not the only factors being considered. To be

ready in time for Orion’s first operational mission 

expected in 2017, the NESC design required additional 

financial commitments for material procurement

and manufacturing and had a tight schedule for 

construction. The baseline design, which was already 

built and tested, offered fewer manufacturing risks, little 

financial commitment, plus a shorter timeline to delivery. “That 

became a significant discriminator in the decision of which 

heat shield to select for the program,” says Kirsch. 

“In the end we wound up staying with the composite derivative, 

versus the titanium option that the NESC was proposing,” 

says Kramer White. “But through the NESC pushing and 

questioning assumptions, it really drove the process of 

competition between the two designs. It was that interaction 

with the NESC that allowed the fabulous results we got, and 

need as a program, to close our mission capture.” 

“The NESC’s alternative design promoted the aggressive 

redesign on the current baseline and the net result was a 

pretty significant reduction of overall heat shield mass,” 

agrees Kirsch. The baseline design will also feature NESC risk 

reduction solutions and test approaches developed during the 

assessment. 

“Whether I need a big trade study or I’m just calling and asking 

for their experience or guidance, or using them as a sounding 

board, the NESC is a good place to go to get objective 

advice,” adds Kramer White. “We’ll be talking about similar 

activities with the NESC into the next year.” 

For several years engineer Jim Jeans, owner of Structural 

Design and Analysis, Inc., has worked as a NASA 

subcontractor supporting GSFC on composite design 

work. With more than 30 years of experience, Jeans

was asked by NESC Principal Engineer Mr. Michael 

Kirsch to join the NESC Orion Heat Shield Carrier 

Structure Assessment Team.

To build an assessment team, the NESC pulls in 

discipline experts from across 

NASA Centers, NASA contractors, 

industry, and other government 

agencies, leveraging a broad range 

of experiences and backgrounds to 

bring the best possible solutions to 

problems.

“We pull people from across the 

entire Agency — across the entire 

country,” says Mr. Paul Roberts, an NESC Associate 

Principal Engineer and heat shield assessment team 

member. “We go wherever we need to find that 

knowledge. Once the teams are formed, you can’t tell

the difference between contractors and civil service 

or between NASA Centers. We’re all just a team 

focused on a technical issue. It also brings a 

definite NASA-wide perspective and country-wide 

perspective to the team.” 

For Kirsch’s team, the diversity and knowledge base 

was “phenomenal,” he says. “The team was very 

agile and could exploit the opportunities that were 

revealed during design phase and recover quickly 

from challenges and setbacks and changes to 

assumptions that occurred during the design phase.”

Putting aside “badges” and “titles,” NESC teams focus 

on the task at hand. “It was all one big team,” says 

Jeans. “Everybody is trying to push the product to the 

finish line.”

This was the third time Jeans had worked with a nationwide NESC team. “And it worked well,” he says. Meeting 

each morning via web conferencing and chatting anytime 

via instant messenger meant everyone was always in the 

loop. And a few times the group got 

together for a face-to-face meeting. 

“It was very productive,” adds Mr. 

James Ainsworth of Collier Research 

Company. Collier’s HyperSizer software helped the team compare 

structural efficiency of numerous 

concepts and material systems, 

and continues to help with sizing 

optimization. “We all worked remotely from our offices 

all over the United States. Kirsch was diligent about 

having team meetings every day and that we all stayed 

in communication. We were all treated as part of the 

team — all privy to same information. It was a good team 

dynamic,” Ainsworth says. 

Roberts says there are other advantages to NESC’s 

approach to developing assessment teams. “Programs 

come to us with problems that are very difficult, so the 

work we get is challenging. You personally learn a lot, 

and you work with all these different people, ladies 

and gentlemen who have tremendous knowledge and 

ability. You have this network to find whatever you need, 

whatever it is. That network is what gives an NESC team 

its real strength.”

35

Illustration of Orion MPCV major components. 

 
Sitting on Dr. Mark Hilburger’s desk are 

several empty aluminum drink cans. 

These thin-walled cylinders, once filled with 

soda, have become valuable props in his 

many discussions on NASA’s shell buckling 

knockdown factors (SBKF). Holding a 

partially collapsed can, Hilburger can 

point to its buckled shell and explain how 

knockdown factors account for the unknown 

variability in the buckling loads of cylinders, 

from soda cans to rocket boosters.

“It looks like a simple cylinder,” says 

Hilburger. “But structurally speaking, its buckling behavior 

is very complex.” It took decades, from the 1930s to the 

1960s, to figure out this unique buckling behavior, and the 

knockdown factors for shell 

buckling established by Apolloera engineers are still in use 

today by NASA and by industry 

worldwide. 

Those 40-year-old knockdown 

factors, however, were developed 

with conservatisms warranted by 

the technology of the time and are likely adding unnecessary 

weight to today’s modern aerospace structures. “Today the 

emphasis is to minimize mass to maximize payload,” says 

Hilburger. He adds that finding ways to reduce the weight of 

launch vehicles is critical for current and future space missions 

headed to Mars, near-Earth asteroids, and beyond. 

That was the catalyst behind Hilburger’s proposal to develop 

and implement new shell buckling knockdown factors. Since 

the spring of 2007, he has led an NESC assessment team 

set on leveraging advanced computer modeling, testing, and 

analysis capabilities to update those knockdown factors so 

that new launch vehicles, such as NASA’s 

Space Launch System (SLS), might reap 

the benefits of significant weight savings 

and reduced risk. 

“We’re fostering a concept that is long 

overdue,” says Mr. Clint Cragg, NESC 

Principal Engineer working with the SBKF 

Team. The NESC recognized the potential 

benefit for NASA and industry programs 

and as a result has provided technical 

and program support, peer reviews, and 

advocacy for the SBKF Team. Cragg 

explains that new knockdown factors could shave hundreds 

of pounds from launch vehicles, which could reduce costs for 

getting into orbit, allow the option to add more payload, and 

increase the potential for traveling further into space.

After nearly 5 years of work, the NESC SBKF Assessment 

Team reached a significant milestone late last year. The team’s 

newly-developed knockdown factors were brought forward by 

the Boeing Corporation, NASA’s partner in the design of SLS, 

in its preliminary design review of the SLS core stage.

A look back

New knockdown factors will result in fundamental changes 

to the development of current and future spacecraft, so

buy-in from the NASA community was crucial. “We’re trying 

to change a longstanding design guideline that everyone

is comfortable with,” says Hilburger. To be successful in 

that endeavor required collaboration on a major scale. Soon 

after he initiated his proposal to develop new knockdown

factors, Hilburger, who at the time was working with the Ares 

Program, began working with engineers, designers, and 

manufacturing experts. 

“It was absolutely key to have them as part of the process 

36

NESC Shell Buckling Investigation Continues to Make Gains

Finite element model of a 

buckled shell.

Ares V-style shell undergoing testing at MSFC in 2009. Buckling of spare shuttle external tank during 2011 test.
to truly understand their work environment and see how they 

design,” says Hilburger. That team concept carried through 

with workshops, meetings with chief engineers from multiple 

NASA Centers, and regular brainstorming sessions with 

potential end users of new knockdown factors. “This only 

made the whole project stronger,” adds Hilburger. 

As the team transitioned to developing knockdown factors 

for the SLS Program, collaboration continued with design 

trade studies and partnerships with contractors and the SLS 

Advanced Development Office.

“We were very excited,” says Ms. Courtney Flugstad, Deputy 

SBKF Assessment Manager, about the SLS Program adopting 

the new knockdown factors. “It shows all 

the hard work everyone has put in, and that 

what we’ve been doing is worthwhile and 

appreciated.” 

From the development of new factors for its 

orthogrid- and isogrid-stiffened tanks and dry 

structure, the SLS Program has been seeing 

results. “As they reduce conservatism, they 

are making their designs lighter by using less 

material, which results in a reduction of material 

costs,” says Hilburger. Additional benefits 

beyond mass savings are likewise coming 

to light. “The SLS Program is also focused on reducing 

design time, and the new factors provide certain structural 

detail information earlier in the design process. That directly 

translates into a shorter design schedule,” he says. 

Hilburger cites an example. “The barrels used to make tanks 

for SLS are actually made of several curved panels or arc 

segments that are welded together. Each weld land is an 

important structural feature that wasn’t originally accounted 

for in preliminary designs. One of the new knockdown factors 

we’ve produced accounts for weld lands and allows them to 

be incorporated early in the design process.” 

Along with the NASA community, the NESC SBKF Assessment 

Team has been keeping the commercial spacecraft industry 

apprised of new developments. “All of the companies I have 

spoken with are very excited and want to work with us,” says 

Flugstad.

A look forward

Starting in the fall of 2013, the SBKF Team performed another 

round of testing at MSFC, running additional subscale tests 

on 8-foot diameter cylinders and another full-scale test on 

a 27-foot diameter cylinder. Similar to the team’s previous 

tests, which combined internal pressure and 

compression loads, the new tests subject the 

cylinders to a bending load to localize the 

buckling on one side.

“The science that comes from these tests is 

amazing,” says Hilburger. “It’s invaluable for 

grounding our computer simulations.” From 

there, the team will be focused on analyzing 

the data and developing a final and formal set 

of knockdown factors. “We’re also focusing 

heavily on documentation and archiving, so that 

10 or 20 years from now, people can look back 

and see that the pedigree of data is well established. It’s an 

important part of the process.”

“This has been an amazing opportunity,” adds Hilburger. 

“Once everyone warmed up to the fact that what we were 

doing was founded in good science, they were comfortable 

with the connection between the fundamental work of the 

Apollo era and how we built a logical path to new knockdown 

factors. Now we can implement them and safely say it is a 

new alternative design recommendation.”

37

Section of space shuttle external tank covered in photogrammetry targets being mounted in shell buckling test fixture at MSFC.
I

n the last decade, the NESC has taken the knowledge it 

has gained over the course of more than 500 technical 

activities — the engineering data gleaned from countless 

independent tests and analyses — and shared it with NASA 

Centers and contractors, industry and academia, and most 

importantly, the next generation of engineers. That knowledge 

sharing comes in many forms, from technical reports to faceto-face workshops to online videos including webcasts.

The need for more in-depth, comprehensive reporting of 

engineering analysis and risk assessment was brought to light 

during the Columbia Accident Investigation. As a result, the 

NESC generates detailed technical reports with every NESC 

assessment. Particularly significant and noteworthy data 

are then turned into one-page, easily consumable technical 

bulletins or added to lessons learned databases, which have 

a broader reach into technical communities.

Often NASA Technical Fellows take a more educational 

approach, reaching out via the NESC Academy, a website that 

currently features more than 180 short, informative videos. 

NESC Academy videos have received more than 8,000 

views since the Academy’s inception and offer the audience 

a virtual classroom experience on a myriad of technical 

topics. Hundreds more are still in the developmental stages.

The NESC also produces live webcasts by its Technical

Discipline Team members, where viewers may send in 

questions to the presenter during the live broadcast. The 

webcasts feature topics relevant to current NASA issues and 

challenges.

More personal, face-to-face knowledge sharing opportunities 

also occur during the year through workshops, forums, and 

technical interchange programs. NASA Technical Fellows 

from varied disciplines organize and host these regular events.

The NESC also invites engineers in the early stages of 

their careers to join in on its larger assessments, another 

vital part of the knowledge share effort. Through its “Early 

Career Participant” initiative, the NESC brings early career 

engineers together with seasoned engineers, giving them 

hands-on experience in solving challenging problems, 

which they can then take back to their organizations and 

carry forward in their careers. The benefits to the Agency 

are broad reaching as these early-career engineers 

bring fresh perspectives to technical activities, and the 

38

On visits to the NASA Centers, NESC Director Ralph Roe, Jr. (center) discussed lessons learned from the Columbia accident, shown with KSC staff.

Sharing Our

Knowledge
expertise of veteran engineers is securely captured for 

future generations. 

Along similar lines, some forums are designed specifically to 

benefit and train the next generation. The 2013 Structures, 

Loads, and Mechanical Systems (SLaMS) Young Professionals’ 

Forum offers early-career engineers a chance to network

with Agency experts to share their ongoing work and get 

valuable feedback. 

The NESC also contributes to the NASA Engineering Network 

(NEN), an online space for communities of practice (COPs), 

led by NASA Technical Fellows, to collaborate and share all 

manner of experiences unique to individual COPs. The NEN 

is not only a lessons learned database, but a vast network 

that connects engineers with multiple information sources, 

and allows them to interact with their NASA Technical Fellow, 

subject-matter experts, and peers. 

Whatever the approach, NESC knowledge sharing brings the 

data gathered in the field to the people it will benefit most, 

when, and how they need it. And it securely captures that

knowledge for generations to come. 

39

On a webcast for the Virtual PM Challenge, NESC Director Ralph Roe, 

Jr. (center) discussed lessons learned from the Columbia accident 

along with NESC Deputy Director Tim Wilson (left) and NASA Associate 

Administrator Robert Lightfoot. 

TECHNICAL UPDATES

Yearly summaries of NESC technical activities including 

lessons learned, available from nesc.nasa.gov.

Top Ten Viewed Lessons 

1. Fundamentals of Aircraft Engine Control

 2. High Voltage Power Supply Design Workshop, Part 1 - Day 1

 3. Fundamentals of Spacecraft Attitude Control

 4. Fundamentals of Launch Vehicle Flight Control System Design

 5. High Voltage Power Supply Design Workshop, Part 1 - Day 2

 6. Fundamentals of Aircraft Flight Control

 7. Fundamentals of Deep Space Mission Design

 8. The Evolution of Guidance, Navigation, and Control in Mars

Entry, Descent, and Landing

 9. Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering and Estimation

10. Metal Fatigue, Part 1

NESC ACADEMY

An online learning site that uses webcasts and videos for 

sharing technical expertise and experiences through spoken 

word and storytelling, available at nescacademy.nasa.gov.

NASA NEN

NASA Technical 

Fellows share 

knowledge and 

lessons learned 

through their 

communities of 

practice.

nen.nasa.gov

TECHNICAL 

BULLETINS

Sharing of new

engineering 

knowledge gained 

through testing 

and analysis,

available from

nesc.nasa.gov.

Knowledge products
(Left to right) David Ordway (MSFC); Brent Evernden (JSC); Gerardo Ortiz (JPL); Robert Maddock (LaRC); William Johnston (Science and Technology 

Corporation); Dwayne Morgan (WFF); Sotiris Kellas (LaRC); Regor Saulsberry (WSTF); Patricia Howell (LaRC); Rick Barton (Nielson Engineering 

and Research, Inc.); James Jeans (Structural Design and Analysis, Inc.); William Benson (KSC); Geoffrey Vining (Virginia Tech); Stephen McDougle 

(MEI Technologies, Inc.); Ralph Roe, Jr. (NESC Director/presenter); Michael Mendenhall (Nielson Engineering and Research, Inc.); Judith Jeevarajan 

(JSC); Paul Munafo (Teledyne Brown Engineering); Jeremy Kenny (MSFC); Robert Button (GRC); James Heineck (ARC); Lawrence Green (LaRC); 

Amri Hernandez-Pellerano (GSFC); David Coote (SSC); James Ross (ARC); Gregory Carr (JPL); Yuan Chen (LaRC); Lorie Grimes-Ledesma (JPL); Pat 

Forrester (NESC Chief Astronaut/presenter); Gloria Yamauchi (ARC). Not pictured: James Ainsworth (Collier Research); Mariah Champagne (KSC); 

and Richard French (JPL).

2013 NESC Honor Award Recipients

Recognizing those who 

Demonstrate a Commitment 

to a Strong Safety Culture

Honors individuals who take personal 

accountability and ownership in initiating 

clear and open communication on diverse 

and controversial issues. A key component 

of this award is based on the process of 

challenging prevailing engineering truths.

Sotiris Kellas

In recognition of technical excellence in 

the professional and persistent pursuit 

of technical risks associated with the 

Orion Avcoat material test methods and 

by identifying and demonstrating a viable 

alternative with improved results 

James C. Ross

In recognition of technical excellence in 

identifying high uncertainty in predicting 

the separated flow aerodynamics of entry 

capsules and executing a comprehensive 

test campaign to characterize these flows

40
Continued next page

Honors individuals who have had a

pronounced effect upon the technical

activities of the NESC.

Robert M. Button

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the Extravehicular Mobility 

Unit Lithium Ion Battery Assessment

Yuan Chen

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the Electrical, Electronic, 

and Electromechanical Commercial 

Off-The-Shelf Parts Case Study for the 

Commercial Crew Program

Brent A. Evernden

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the mechanical design of 

the NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Titanium Orthogrid Alternate Heat Shield 

Carrier

Amri I. Hernandez-Pellerano

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the International Space 

Station Plasma Contactor Unit Utilization 

Plan Update Assessment

James W. Jeans

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the structural analysis and 

design of the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Titanium Orthogrid Heat 

Shield Carrier Structure

Dwayne R. Morgan

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the Ice Cloud and 

Land Elevation Satellite Advanced 

Topographical Laser Altimeter System 

Instrument Beam Steering Mechanism 

Quick Reaction Assessment 

Regor L. Saulsberry

In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership of the Expendable Launch 

Vehicle Payload Pyrovalve Reliability 

Assessment Team to successful 

conclusion and achievement of a valueadded result for the Mars 2020 Program

Honors individual accomplishments of 

NESC job-related tasks of such magnitude 

and merit as to deserve special recognition.

James Ainsworth

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the structural sizing on the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center Titanium 

Orthogrid Heat Shield

Gregory A. Carr

In recognition of engineering excellence in 

support of the independent review of the 

Space Launch System electrical power 

system

Richard T. French

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development and implementation of 

the Thermal Performance Data Services 

Module; an Agency archive for historical 

and future thermal protection system 

performance data

Lawrence L. Green

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development of analytical 

techniques resulting in improved reliability 

predictions for the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle Heat Shield

James T. Heineck

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development and implementation 

of a unique Particle Imaging Velocimetry 

capability in the NASA Ames Unitary Plan 

Wind Tunnel

Patricia A. Howell

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the application of X-ray computed 

tomography to characterize damage 

progression in advanced materials used 

in the Orion Launch Abort System

Judith A. Jeevarajan

In recognition of engineering excellence in 

the support of NASA and industry efforts 

to understand and resolve lithium ion 

battery incidents

William M. Johnston

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in developing and conducting high priority 

Orion Avcoat material tests for the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center 

David O. Ordway

In recognition of engineering excellence 

and project leadership in the formulation 

and execution of the Pyroshock 

Characterization of Composite Materials 

Independent Assessment

G. Geoffrey Vining

In recognition of engineering excellence 

and dedication to continuously improve 

and stretch boundaries in mathematical 

analysis of real data and efficient 

test planning in support of the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center

Gloria K. Yamauchi

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development, integration, and 

application of a three-dimensional 

Particle Image Velocimetry instrument 

to the Orion wake characterization wind 

tunnel test

Honors individual accomplishments or 

contributions that contributed substantially 

to support NESC’s mission.

Mariah K. Champagne

In recognition of exemplary performance 

and sustained, dedicated support to the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

as the Business Point of Contact for the 

Kennedy Space Center

Honors a group of employees comprised 

of government and non-government 

personnel for outstanding accomplishment 

through the coordination of individual 

efforts that have contributed substantially to 

the accomplishment of the NESC’s mission.

Autonomous Aerobraking

Development Team

In recognition of the successful 

development and demonstration 

of Autonomous Aerobraking in an 

operational readiness test

High Fidelity Data Acquisition

System Development Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions to design, development, fabrication, and testing efforts supporting the 

High Fidelity Data Acquisition System 

Project

E-1 Test Facility Blast/Acoustic Effect 

Mitigation Tools Assessment Team

In recognition of tireless dedication 

and innovative solutions on the highly 

complex NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center E-1 Test Facility Blast/Acoustic 

Effect Mitigation Tools Assessment

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts Case Study Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in support of the possible use 

of commercial off-the-shelf electrical, 

electronic, and electromechanical parts in 

critical human space flight applications

41
 

Expendable Launch Vehicle Payload 

Pyrovalve Reliability Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in conducting a comprehensive 

assessment to evaluate the reliability of 

pyrotechnic-operated valves in controlling 

hazardous gases and fluids and providing 

recommendations to stakeholders that 

ultimately facilitated Mars 2020

Elevated Temperature on Chandra 

X-Ray Observatory Integral Propulsion 

System Composite Overwrapped 

Pressure Vessel Evaluation Team

In recognition of exceptional service 

in the expedited risk assessment 

of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory 

Integral Propulsion System Composite 

Overwrapped Pressure Vessel titanium 

liner and carbon fiber/epoxy composite

Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite 

Laser Pointing Evaluations of 

Alternative Design Solutions Team

In recognition of outstanding 

accomplishments in evaluating the 

Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite 

(ICESat-2) Advanced Topographical 

Laser Altimeter System Instrument 

Beam Steering Mechanism design and 

recommending alternative solutions for 

the ICESat-2 Project 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

Drogue Parachute High Altitude

Qualification Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in assessing the crew module 

aerodynamic stability predictions and 

parachute tools validity to predict 

drogue parachute high altitude loads and 

performance

NASA Lithium Ion Thermal

Runaway Assessment Team

In recognition of outstanding support in 

assessing the risk of thermal runaway 

in lithium ion batteries used in NASA 

systems

NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Reinforced Carbon/Carbon-Silicon 

Carbide Materials Assessment Team

In recognition of outstanding support 

developing essential new understanding 

of reinforced carbon/carbon-silicon 

carbide material to ensure the safe 

operation of the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle Launch Abort System

Orion Wake Characterization

Test Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions to the acquisition of unique, 

unsteady wake flowfield data on an Orion 

capsule at transonic flight conditions

Probing Aircraft Flight Test Hazard 

Mitigation for the Alternative Fuel 

Effects on Contrails and Cruise 

Emissions Assessment Team

In recognition of exemplary support in 

conducting an independent aircraft loads 

analysis, margin assessment, and flight 

test risk characterization and mitigation 

resulting in improved flight test safety

Solar Probe Plus Upper Stage 

Performance Assessment Team

In recognition of outstanding 

contributions in support of the successful 

time-critical assessment of the Solar 

Probe Plus Upper Stage Performance

NESC Core Team members at the 2013 NESC Honor Awards Ceremony.

42

Continued from previous page
Continued next page

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NESC Director

Mr. Ralph R. Roe, Jr. is the NESC’s Director at Langley 

Research Center. Mr. Roe has over 30 years of experience 

in human spaceflight program management, technical 

management, and test engineering. Mr. Roe previously 

held several key positions in the Space Shuttle Program, including

Vehicle Engineering Manager, Launch Director, and Kennedy Space 

Center Engineering Director.

Timmy R. Wilson

NESC Deputy Director

Mr. Timmy R. Wilson is the NESC’s Deputy Director 

at Langley Research Center. Mr. Wilson was formerly 

the NESC’s Chief Engineer at Kennedy Space 

Center (KSC). Prior to joining the NESC, Mr. Wilson 

served as Deputy Chief Engineer for Space Shuttle Processing at 

KSC. Mr. Wilson has over 32 years of engineering and management

experience supporting the Space Shuttle Program.

Michael P. Blythe

NESC Deputy Director for Safety

Mr. Michael P. Blythe is the NESC’s Deputy Director for 

Safety and is resident at Johnson Space Center. Prior to 

joining the NESC, Mr. Blythe served as the Acting Assistant 

Associate Administrator in the Office of the Administrator 

at NASA Headquarters. Mr. Blythe came to the Office of the Administrator 

from the Office of Chief Engineer, where he served as the Director for the 

Engineering and Program/Project Management Division. In this capacity, 

he was responsible for establishing and implementing Agency engineering 

and program/project management policy, procedures, and processes to 

improve the efficiency and success of NASA’s investments.

Dawn M. Schaible

Manager, Systems Engineering Office

Ms. Dawn M. Schaible is Manager of the NESC’s Systems 

Engineering Office at Langley Research Center. Prior to 

joining the NESC, Ms. Schaible worked in the International 

Space Station/Payload Processing Directorate at Kennedy 

Space Center. Ms. Schaible has over 26 years of experience in systems 

engineering, integration, and ground processing for the Space Shuttle and 

International Space Station Programs.

Patrick G. Forrester

NESC Chief Astronaut

Mr. Patrick G. Forrester is the NESC’s Chief Astronaut and 

is resident at Johnson Space Center. Mr. Forrester began 

his NASA career in 1993 after serving in the U.S. Army. As 

a Master Army Aviator, he logged over 4800 hours in over 

50 different aircraft. He was selected as an astronaut candidate in 1996 

and flew on STS-105 (2001), STS-117 (2007), and STS-128 (2009). He 

has logged over 950 hours in space, including four spacewalks totaling 

25 hours and 22 minutes of extra vehicular activity time. 

Dr. Daniel Winterhalter 

Chief Scientist

Dr. Daniel Winterhalter is the NESC’s Chief Scientist and is 

resident at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Dr. Winterhalter 

has over 35 years of experience as a research scientist at 

JPL. His research interests include the spatial evolution 

of the solar wind into the outer reaches of the heliosphere, as well as its 

interaction with and influence on planetary environments. In addition, as 

a member of several flight teams, he has been intimately involved with 

the planning, launching, and operation of complex spacecraft and space 

science missions. 

43

Core Leadership Team
Continued next page

Clinton H. Cragg 

NESC Principal Engineer 

Mr. Clinton H. Cragg is a Principal Engineer with the NESC 

at Langley Research Center. Mr. Cragg came to the NESC 

after retiring from the U.S. Navy. Mr. Cragg served as the 

Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. Ohio and later as the 

Chief of Current Operations, U.S. European Command. Mr. Cragg has 

over 35 years of experience in supervision, command, and ship-borne 

nuclear safety.

Dr. Nancy J. Currie

NESC Principal Engineer

Dr. Nancy J. Currie is a Principal Engineer with the NESC 

and is resident at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Dr. Currie 

was formerly the NESC Chief Engineer at JSC. Dr. Currie 

came to the NESC from JSC, where she served as the 

Deputy Director of the Engineering Directorate. Dr. Currie has over 24 

years of experience in robotics and human factors engineering. Selected 

as an astronaut in 1990, Dr. Currie is a veteran of four space shuttle 

missions and has accrued 1000 hours in space.

Dr. Michael G. Gilbert

NESC Principal Engineer

Dr. Michael G. Gilbert is a Principal Engineer with the 

NESC at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Dr. Gilbert 

was formerly the NESC Chief Engineer at LaRC. Before 

joining the NESC, he was Head of the LaRC Systems 

Management Office. Dr. Gilbert has over 35 years of engineering, 

research, and management experience with aircraft, missile, spacecraft, 

Space Shuttle, and International Space Station Programs.

Michael T. Kirsch

NESC Principal Engineer

Mr. Michael T. Kirsch is a Principal Engineer with 

the NESC at Langley Research Center. Mr. Kirsch 

joined the NESC from NASA’s White Sands Test 

Facility, where he served as the Deputy Manager 

responsible for planning and directing developmental and operational 

tests of spacecraft propulsion systems and related subsystems. 

Mr. Kirsch has over 24 years of experience in managing projects

and test facilities.

Patrick A. Martin

NASA Headquarters Senior SMA Integration Manager

Mr. Patrick A. Martin currently serves as Senior Safety and Mission 

Assurance Manager in the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance 

(OSMA), where he is assigned as the Liaison Officer to the NESC.  He was 

formerly the NASA Headquarters OSMA Manager for the Science Mission 

Directorates flight missions where he was responsible for assuring that 

safe and effective SMA programs were established and implemented 

throughout each phase of NASA’s Earth and Space Science missions.  Mr. 

Martin has over 30 years of experience in the aerospace systems safety 

and mission assurance disciplines and mishap investigations.

Dawn C. Emerson

NESC Chief Engineer

Ms. Dawn C. Emerson is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Glenn Research Center (GRC). Ms. Emerson came to the 

NESC from GRC, where she most recently served as the 

Deputy Project Manager during formulation of the Solar 

Electric Propulsion Flight Demonstration Project. Ms. Emerson has over 

28 years of management and technical experience with NASA and private 

industry.

Steven J. Gentz

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Steven J. Gentz is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center. Mr. Gentz was formerly a 

Principal Engineer with the NESC at Langley Research 

Center. Mr. Gentz has over 30 years of experience 

involving numerous NASA, Department of Defense, and industry failure 

analyses and incident investigations, including Challenger, Columbia, 

Tethered Satellite System, and the TWA 800 Accident Investigations.

R. Lloyd Keith

NESC Chief Engineer 

Mr. R. Lloyd Keith is the NESC’s Chief Engineer, as well 

as support and backup for the Center Chief Engineer, 

at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Mr. Keith has over 

36 years of experience working in both technical and 

managerial positions. Mr. Keith has supported a number of flight projects, 

including the Mars Pathfinder Project, SeaWinds, Stardust, Mars ’98, New 

Millennium Deep Space 1, and the Flight Hardware Logistics Program. 

Nans Kunz

NESC Chief Engineer 

Mr. Nans Kunz is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at Ames 

Research Center (ARC). Mr. Kunz came to the NESC 

from the Systems Engineering Division at ARC. Mr. Kunz 

has over 35 years of engineering experience leading 

and managing NASA programs and projects, including serving as the 

Chief Engineer of the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy 

(SOFIA) Project.

Stephen A. Minute 

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Stephen A. Minute is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Mr. Minute came to the 

NESC from KSC, where he served as the Chief of the 

Space Shuttle Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance 

Division. Mr. Minute has over 29 years of engineering and 

management experience in the Space Shuttle and International Space 

Station Programs. 

Joseph W. Pellicciotti

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Joseph W. Pellicciotti is the NESC’s Chief Engineer 

at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Pellicciotti 

was formerly the NASA Technical Fellow for Mechanical 

Systems resident at GSFC. Mr. Pellicciotti served as 

the Chief Engineer for the GSFC Mechanical Systems Division before 

joining the NESC. Mr. Pellicciotti has over 25 years of combined private 

industry and NASA experience designing structure and mechanisms for 

commercial, military, and civil spacecraft.

44

NASA Headquarters Liaison

NESC Principal Engineers

NESC Chief Engineers
Continued next page

Jill L. Prince

NESC Chief Engineer

Ms. Jill L. Prince is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at Langley 

Research Center (LaRC). Ms. Prince came to the NESC 

from LaRC, where she served as the Head of the Structural 

and Thermal Systems Branch. Ms. Prince has over 12 

years of technical experience in flight mechanics. 

Michael D. Smiles

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Michael D. Smiles is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center (SSC). Mr. Smiles joined the NESC 

from SSC, where he served as the Safety and Mission 

Assurance Manager. Mr. Smiles has over 28 years of 

management and technical experience with NASA at SSC and Marshall 

Space Flight Center. 

Dr. James F. Stewart

NESC Chief Engineer

Dr. James F. Stewart is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). Dr. Stewart 

joined the NESC from DFRC, where he served as the 

Dryden Exploration Mission Director. Dr. Stewart has 

over 47 years of management and technical experience leading missile

and aircraft programs.

T. Scott West

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. T. Scott West is the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Johnson Space Center (JSC). Mr. West came to 

the NESC from the Loads and Structural Dynamics 

Branch at JSC where he served as the Branch Chief. 

Mr. West has over 22 years of technical and management experience 

with Space Shuttle, International Space Station, Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle, and Exploration projects with NASA and private industry.

Michael L. Aguilar

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Michael L. Aguilar is the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Software and is resident at Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC). Mr. Aguilar joined the NESC from GSFC, 

where he served as the James Webb Space Telescope 

Instrument Software Manager. Mr. Aguilar has over 37 years of experience 

on embedded software development.

Cornelius J. Dennehy

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Cornelius J. Dennehy is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) and is resident 

at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Dennehy 

came to the NESC from the Mission Engineering and 

Systems Analysis Division at GSFC, where he served as the Division’s 

Assistant Chief for Technology. Mr. Dennehy has over 33 years of 

experience in the architecture, design, development, integration, and 

operation of GNC systems, and space platforms for communications, 

defense, remote sensing, and scientific mission applications.

Dr. Michael J. Dube

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Michael J. Dube is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Mechanical Systems and is resident at the Goddard 

Space Flight Center. Prior to joining the NESC, he served 

as the Discipline Deputy for the Mechanical Systems 

Technical Discipline Team. Dr. Dube has over 20 years of experience 

within NASA, academia, and in private industry in the areas of tribology 

and lubrication of moving mechanical assemblies.

Roberto Garcia

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Roberto Garcia is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion and is resident at Marshall Space Flight 

Center. Mr. Garcia came to the NESC from the Solid 

Propulsion Systems Division, where he served as 

Division Chief. Mr. Garcia has over 22 years of experience in performing 

aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and engine system design and analysis of 

rocket propulsion.

Oscar Gonzalez

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Oscar Gonzalez is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Avionics and is resident at Goddard Space Flight Center 

(GSFC). Mr. Gonzalez came to the NESC from GSFC, 

where he served as the International Space Station/

Express Logistic Carrier Avionics Systems Manager. Mr. Gonzalez has 

over 35 years of NASA and private industry experience where he has 

held a variety of critical leadership roles in power electronics, electrical 

systems, instrument systems, and avionics systems. 

Dr. Christopher J. Iannello

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Christopher J. Iannello is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Electrical Power and is resident at Kennedy Space Center. 

Prior to joining the NESC, he served as the Discipline 

Deputy for the Electrical Power Technical Discipline Team. 

Dr. Iannello has over 24 years of experience with electrical power systems 

with NASA, academia, and private industry.

Dr. Curtis E. Larsen

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Curtis E. Larsen is the NASA Technical Fellow for Loads 

and Dynamics and is resident at Johnson Space Center. 

Prior to joining the NESC, Dr. Larsen was the Technical 

Discipline Manager for Cargo Integration Structures 

in the Space Shuttle Program’s Flight Operations and 

Integration Office. Dr. Larsen has over 33 years of engineering experience 

with expertise in stochastic structural dynamics, structural safety, and 

probabilistic engineering applications.

Daniel G. Murri

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Daniel G. Murri is the NASA Technical Fellow for Flight 

Mechanics and is resident at Langley Research Center 

(LaRC). Mr. Murri served as Head of the Flight Dynamics 

Branch at LaRC before joining the NESC. He has over 

32 years of engineering experience conducting numerous wind-tunnel, 

simulation, light-test, and theoretical studies in the exploration of new 

technology concepts and in support of aircraft development programs.

45

NESC Chief Engineers Continued

NASA Technical Fellows
Dr. Cynthia H. Null

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Cynthia H. Null is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Human Factors and is resident at Ames Research Center. 

Before joining the NESC, Dr. Null was a scientist in the 

Human Factors Division and Deputy Program Manager 

of the Space Human Factors Engineering Project. Dr. Null has 27 years 

of experience lecturing on Human Factors, and another 21 years of 

experience in Human Factors applied to NASA programs.

Dr. Robert S. Piascik

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Robert S. Piascik is the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Materials and is resident at Langley Research 

Center (LaRC). Dr. Piascik joined the NESC from the 

LaRC Mechanics of Materials Branch and the Metals 

and Thermal Structures Branch, where he served as a Senior Materials 

Scientist. Dr. Piascik has over 29 years of experience in the commercial 

nuclear power industry and over 19 years of experience in basic and 

applied materials research for several NASA programs.

Dr. William H. Prosser

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. William H. Prosser is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Nondestructive Evaluation and is resident at Langley 

Research Center (LaRC). Dr. Prosser joined the NESC 

from the Nondestructive Evaluation Sciences Branch 

at LaRC. Dr. Prosser has over 26 years of experience in the field of 

ultrasonic and acoustic emission sensing techniques.

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Structures and is resident at Langley Research Center 

(LaRC). Dr. Raju was the Senior Technologist in the LaRC 

Structures and Materials Competency prior to joining the 

NESC. Dr. Raju has over 38 years of experience in structures, structural 

mechanics, and structural integrity.

Steven L. Rickman

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Steven L. Rickman is the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Passive Thermal and is resident at Johnson Space 

Center (JSC). Mr. Rickman joined the NESC from JSC’s 

Thermal Design Branch, where he served as the Chief. 

Mr. Rickman has over 28 years of management and technical experience 

in passive thermal control.

Henry A. Rotter

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Henry (Hank) A. Rotter is the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Life Support/Active Thermal and is resident at 

Johnson Space Center (JSC). Mr. Rotter joined the NESC 

from the JSC Crew and Thermal Systems Division and the 

Space Launch Initiative Program, where he was Engineering Manager and 

the Orbital Space Plane Team Leader for life support and active thermal 

control teams. Mr. Rotter has over 46 years of life support and active 

thermal control systems experience during the Apollo, Space Shuttle, and 

Orbital Space Plane Programs.

Dr. David M. Schuster

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. David M. Schuster is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Aerosciences and is resident at Langley Research Center. 

Prior to joining the NESC, Dr. Schuster was the Branch 

Head for the Structural and Thermal Systems Branch in 

the Systems Engineering Directorate. Dr. Schuster has 

over 35 years of experience in the aerospace industry 

with expertise in aeroelasticity and integrated aerodynamic analysis.

Roberto Garcia, 

NASA Technical 

Fellow for Propulsion, 

passed away in 

October 2013. He 

was a valued member 

of our team and made 

many significant 

contributions to the 

NESC, Marshall 

Space Flight Center, 

and NASA. Our 

friend and colleague 

will be greatly missed.

46

NASA Technical Fellows Continued
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)

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) 

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) 

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) 

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)

Dr. Shamim A. Rahman

NESC Chief Engineer at Stennis 

Space Center (2005 – 06) 

Jerry L. Ross

NESC Chief Astronaut (2004 – 06) 

Dr. Charles F. Schafer

NESC Chief Engineer at Marshall 

Space Flight Center (2006 – 10)

Steven S. Scott

NESC Chief Engineer at Goddard 

Space Flight Center (2008 – 09) 

Bryan K. Smith

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center (2008 – 10) 

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) 

George Hopson, our 

colleague, friend and 

mentor, passed away in 

October 2013. George 

was a founding member 

of the NESC and our first 

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Propulsion. He had a 

distinguished 45-year career 

at NASA and was a true 

leader in his field. He will be 

remembered for his lasting 

contributions to the Agency.
NESC/NASA Published Technical Memoranda

1. Chandra X-Ray Observatory COPV Risk Assessment ....................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217793

2. Orion Docking Mechanism Jettison System (DMJS) Cheater Cut Testing .....................................................NASA/TM-2013-217794

3. Impact of NASA Arc Jet Complex Consolidation on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)

Program and Thermal Protection System (TPS) Margins ...............................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217962

4. High Strain Rate Fracture of the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) Orbital Maneuvering

System/Reaction Control System (OMS/RCS) Thruster .................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217970

5. Crew Module (CM) Crew Seat Load Attenuation and Isolation ......................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217987/Part 1

6. Crew Module (CM) Crew Seat Load Attenuation and Isolation Appendices ..................................................NASA/TM-2013-217987/Part 2

7. Composite Crew Module (CCM) Permeability Characterization .....................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217990

8. Development Test Objective (DTO) Performance Verification .........................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217992

9. Probing Aircraft Flight Test Hazard Mitigation for the Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails &

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) Research Team ..................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217995/Volume I

10. Probing Aircraft Flight Test Hazard Mitigation for the Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails &

Cruise Emissions (ACCESS) Research Team - Appendices ...........................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217995/Volume II

11. Structural Analysis Peer Review for the Static Display of the Orbiter Atlantis at the Kennedy 

Space Center Visitors Center ..........................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-217996

12. Reducing Risk Associated With Vibro-Acoustic Environments ......................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218006

13. International Space Station (ISS) Sabatier Assembly (SA) Design and Safety of Operations Evaluation .......NASA/TM-2013-218009

14. International Space Station (ISS) Ammonia Leak Location: Assessment of Sensing Technologies ...............NASA/TM-2013-218011

15. Space Launch System (SLS) T-0 Vehicle Stabilization Loads Evaluation .......................................................NASA/TM-2013-218012

16. Thermal Performance Data Services (TPDS) ..................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218016

17. Crew Module Water Landing Modeling ...........................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218017/Volume I

18. Crew Module Water Landing Modeling - Appendices ....................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218017/Volume II

19. Pyrovalve Reliability Assessment for Expendable Launch Vehicle Payloads .................................................NASA/TM-2013-218018/Volume I

20. Pyrovalve Reliability Assessment for Expendable Launch Vehicle Payloads - Appendices ...........................NASA/TM-2013-218018/Volume II

21. Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2) Laser Pointing Evaluations of Alternative 

Design Solutions .............................................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218019

22. Carbon-Carbon Silicon Carbide (C/C-SiC) - Material Characterization and Modeling Phase II .....................NASA/TM-2013-218020 Volume I

23. Carbon-Carbon Silicon Carbide (C/C-SiC) Material Characterization and Modeling

Phase II Appendices .......................................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218020 Volume II PT1

24. Carbon-Carbon Silicon Carbide (C/C-SiC) Material Characterization and Modeling

Phase II Appendices .......................................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218020 Volume II PT2

25. Carbon-Carbon Silicon Carbide (C/C-SiC) Material Characterization and Modeling

Phase II Appendices .......................................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218020 Volume II PT3

26. Independent Assessment of Instrumentation for ISS On-Orbit NDE ..............................................................NASA/TM-2013-218021/Volume I

27. Independent Assessment of Instrumentation for ISS On-Orbit NDE - Appendices .......................................NASA/TM-2013-218021/Volume II

28. Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Reaction Control System (RCS) Jet Interactions (JI) 

Testing and Analysis Report ............................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218023

29. Assess/Mitigate Risk Through the Use of Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) Tools ..................NASA/TM-2013-218031

30. Development of Autonomous Aerobraking - Phase 2 ....................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218032

31. SBKF Modeling and Analysis Plan: Buckling Analysis of Compression-Loaded Orthogrid 

and Isogrid Cylinders ......................................................................................................................................NASA/TM-2013-218037

32. Support to Inspiration Mars (IM) Design Study for Lightweight Earth Reentry Pod (ERP) .............................NASA/TM-2013-218048

33. Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) Superelastic Rolling Element Bearings: Feasibility Assessment for a

Corrosive Space Station Application ..............................................................................................................NASA/TP-2013-218085

Papers and Presentations

1. Krueger, R.; Shivakumar, K. N.; and Raju, I. S.: Fracture Mechanics Analyses for Interface Crack Problems - A Review.

Presented at 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 

April 8-11, 2013, Boston, Massachusetts. AIAA-2013-1476.

2. Raju, I. S.: Structural Analysis and Margins of Safety. Presented at Invited Seminar at the Andhra University for Kakinada, 

February 7, 2013, Kakinada, India.

3. Raju, I. S.: Structures, Failures, and Lessons. Presented at Invited Seminar at the Andhra University for Kakinada,

February 7, 2013, Kakinada, India.

4. Schaible, D. M.; and Piascik, R. S.: Corrosion and Spacecraft Systems - Lessons Learned and Risk Management. Presented at Risk 

Management of Corrodible Systems Conference, June 18-20, 2013, Washington, District of Columbia.

5. Schuster, D. M.; Heeg, J.; Wieseman, C. D.; and Chwalowski, P.: Analysis of Test Case Computations and Experiments for the 

Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop. Presented at 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,

January 7-10, 2013, Grapevine, Texas. AIAA-2013-0788.

48
49
50

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

NP-2013-11-505-LaRC