Annual summary of NESC technical activities including lessons 

learned, technical bulletins, innovative techniques, discipline 

features, journal articles, and conference publications. 
Each NASA Center has a local NESC

representative who serves as a point of

contact for Center-based technical issues.

NESC Chief Engineers

Ames Research Center

Kenneth R. Hamm

Armstrong Flight Research Center

W. Lance Richards

Glenn Research Center

Robert S. Jankovsky

Goddard Space Flight Center

Fernando A. Pellerano

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Kimberly A. Simpson

Johnson Space Center

T. Scott West

Kennedy Space Center

Stephen A. Minute

Langley Research Center

Mary Elizabeth Wusk

Marshall Space Flight Center

Steven J. Gentz

Stennis Space Center

Michael D. Smiles

Find your local NESC contact through the NASA Enterprise Directory.
From NASA Leadership

Stephen Jurczyk

NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NASA Chief Engineer

“This year has been difficult for our nation and the world on many 

levels. Although there have been many challenges, I am proud to 

be a part of an Agency that sets a positive example and inspires our 

global community. Through the difficulties, NASA has made progress 

in developing the systems for the first mission of the Artemis program 

– successfully completing system testing of the Orion spacecraft 

including structural test article and space environmental testing to 

verify the spacecraft is ready for Artemis I. The agency also completed 

the prerequisite system test cases for the ‘test like you fly’ SLS Core 

Stage Green Run test that is the final hot fire test to clear the Core 

Stage for Artemis I. We have selected partners to join us in developing 

the Human Landing System; we have worked with our commercial 

partners in enabling test flights and have successfully launched 

Americans from U.S. soil to the International Space Station for the 

first time since 2011; and we launched the Perseverance rover to Mars 

for a February landing. Through all of this, the NESC has provided 

crucial support in enabling many of NASA’s achievements. Through 

specialized expertise and guidance, rigor in providing technical 

excellence, and determination to reduce the risk to our astronauts, 

the NESC has been there to provide critical independent technical 

assessments to support NASA programs.”

“We at NASA have grown and adapted this year to a new normal. 

We have worked from home, and we have utilized technological 

advances to do this work successfully. We have committed to the 

health and safety of our personnel, while ensuring that our NASA 

family can enable NASA’s mission under new constructs. The NESC 

has shown incredible agility in its determination to provide the best 

support to NASA’s programs. This 2020 Technical Update illustrates 

its tenacity in solving a broad range of difficult technical problems, 

while capturing knowledge and lessons learned to pass along to the 

NASA engineering community. From its work in supporting the Artemis 

missions and enabling American astronauts to again launch from 

U.S. soil, to the development of numerous engineering reports and 

technical bulletins from these efforts, the NESC continues to provide 

exceptional technical expertise to the Agency. The NESC reached a 

major milestone this year by surpassing 1000 technical assessments 

and support activities. This speaks volumes to the value the NESC has 

brought to NASA’s programs and projects. As our work environments 

continue to change, so will the NESC adapt and bring new approaches 

to achieve NASA’s mission.”

From NASA Leadership 1
Page 11 Page 33 Page 44

NESC Overview

NESC Assessment & 

Support Activities

Completed and in-progress technical

assessments and support activities

conducted in FY20

Innovative Techniques

Solutions developed from NESC assessments

26-27 Innovation that Impacts All NASA Missions: 

 Improving How We Engineer Our Systems 

 28 Lift-off Modeling & Simulation of T-0 

 Umbilicals Using a Flexible Multibody 

 Dynamic Model Framework

 29 Strain-Hardness Correlation

 Testing Technique

 30 Magnetically Levitated Space Mechanisms

Discipline Focus

Discipline perspectives related to

NESC assessments

 31 Microthrusters as a Potential Solution for 

 Accomplishing Pointing Stability for Large 

 Space Telescopes

32-33 Transient Combustion Modeling

 for Hypergolic Engines

 34 Systems Engineers Bring An Integrated 

 Perspective to NASA Missions

 35 Defining Human Error Analysis for Human 

 Rating of Crewed Spacecraft

26-30

31-35

6-25

3-5 36-37

38-41

42-44

45-55

56-57

58-59

64

60-63

NESC Knowledge Products

	 Discover the NESC’s wide variety of

readily accessible online products

NESC Technical Bulletins

Critical knowledge captured from 

NESC assessments in FY20

Lessons Learned

Learning from past mistakes to

	 safeguard spaceflight’s future

NESC at the Centers

Drawing upon resources from the

entire Agency

NESC Leadership & Alumni

NESC Honor Awards

Publications

Acronyms
NASA Engineering & Safety Center

A Unique Resource

The NESC is an Agency-wide resource that provides a forum for reporting 

technical issues and contributing alternative viewpoints to resolve NASA’s 

highest-risk challenges. Multidisciplinary teams of ready experts provide 

distinctively unbiased technical assessments to enable more informed decisions.

Engineering Excellence

The NESC draws on the knowledge base of technical experts from across NASA, 

industry, academia, and other government agencies. Collaborating with leading 

engineers allows the NESC to consistently optimize processes, strengthen 

technical capabilities, and broaden perspectives. This practice further reinforces 

the NESC’s commitment to engineering excellence.

Independence & Objectivity

The NESC performs technical assessments and provides recommendations 

based on independent testing and analysis. An independent reporting path and 

independent funding from the Office of the Chief Engineer help ensure objective 

technical results for NASA.

Artist Cece Bibby painting Sigma 

Seven logo on Mercury spacecraft 

with Astronaut Wally Schirra, 1962.

“I named my spacecraft Sigma Seven. 

Sigma, a Greek symbol for the sum of 

the elements of an equation, stands for 

engineering excellence. That was my goal 

- engineering excellence.” 

 - Wally Schirra

The NESC

Insignia Origin

For the NESC, the Sigma also represents engineering excellence. The 

NESC’s unique insignia has its roots in the early Mercury program. While 

the Sigma Seven represented the seven Mercury astronauts, the "10" in 

the NESC insignia represents the ten NASA Centers. The NESC draws 

upon resources from the entire Agency to ensure engineering excellence.

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

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

The NESC engages proactively to help NASA avoid future problems.

NESC Overview 3
NESC Headquarters,

Langley Research Center

1004 

ACCEPTED 

REQUESTS 

SINCE 

2003,

84 IN FY20

NASA has been impacted by the challenges of 2020 like everyone else and has had to 

reassess how to perform its mission. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) 

has adapted along with the rest of the Agency. Fortunately, the NESC is built to adapt. The 

foundation of the NESC is people, so where the people are – in the office, in the lab, at home 

– is where the NESC is. During this difficult year, NASA has continued to move forward, and 

so has the NESC. 

The NESC’s mission is to provide the Agency with a unique resource promoting engineering 

excellence, independence, and objectivity. The strength of the NESC is its ability to rapidly 

reach out to industry, academia, the government, and all of NASA, to secure technical and 

scientific expertise needed to solve the Agency’s most difficult problems. This ability not only 

brings the knowledge and experience to where the problems are, but also enables the NESC 

to proactively build diverse teams by drawing from such a broad base. The need for this 

type of organization – one that provides an independent voice and a source of resources to 

bolster safety through engineering excellence – was recognized after the Columbia accident.

The NESC’s technical expertise resides in the NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs). 

TDTs comprise engineers and scientists from across the country who join NESC Assessment 

Teams when there is a need identified through a request to the NESC. Assessment teams 

are formed in the spirit of the traditional “tiger team,” which are short-duration, efficient, and 

assembled to focus on a specific problem. The 20 discipline-specific TDTs are each led by 

a NASA Technical Fellow. The Technical Fellows are NASA’s senior technical experts and 

stewards of their respective disciplines. 

The Technical Fellows constitute part of the NESC core team, along with the Principal 

Engineers, NESC Chief Engineers, Management and Technical Support Office, NESC 

Integration Office, and NESC Director’s Office. The Principal Engineers lead many of the 

assessments, primarily those that are large and require coordination among several different 

disciplines. The NESC Chief Engineers reside at each of the ten NASA Centers, coordinate 

Center support to assessments, and serve as each Center’s NESC point of contact. The 

Management and Technical Support Office provides the contracting, budgeting, and 

other business support for the NESC and its assessments. The NESC Integration Office 

coordinates programmatic and technical integration for the NESC. 

The hallmarks of the NESC are that every assessment is documented in a final report, and 

each final report must be approved by the NESC core team through the NESC Review Board 

(NRB). The NRB formalizes a diverse peer-review process by bringing all of the experiences, 

knowledge, and backgrounds of the core team members together to critique, enhance, and 

ultimately strengthen each product. The NESC has adapted to the challenges of 2020 by 

relying on this diversity and flexibility built into the organization. The NASA Administrator 

communicated this year that NASA demonstrates “the value of equal opportunity, diversity, 

and inclusion to our mission accomplishment.” The NESC exemplifies the Administrator’s 

message by demonstrating that the NESC’s foundation of technical excellence is strengthened 

by making diversity a priority.

Promoting Engineering 

Excellence, Independence, 

and Objectivity

4 NESC Overview
NASA ENGINEERING & SAFETY CENTER CORE TEAM

Technical Leadership

 and Management

NASA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER

• Aerosciences

• Avionics

• Cryogenics

• Electrical Power

• Environmental Control & Life Support

• Flight Mechanics

• Guidance, Navigation, & Control

• Human Factors

• Loads & Dynamics

• Materials

• Mechanical Systems

• Nondestructive Evaluation

• Nuclear Power & Propulsion

• Passive Thermal

• Propulsion

• Sensors & Instrumentation

• Software

• Space Environments

• Structures

• Systems Engineering

TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE TEAMS

MORE THAN 900 TDT MEMBERS

Technical Workforce

Management

& Technical 

Support

Office

(MTSO)

NESC

Integration 

Office

(NIO)

NESC

Chief

Engineers

(NCE)

NESC

Principal

Engineers

(PE)

NASA

Technical

Fellows

Office

of the

Director

NESC REVIEW BOARD

External Partners

NASA

73% Consultants

1% 

Other Gov.

1% 

Academia

3% 

Industry

22% Data as of September 30, 2020

Space

Technology

Human Exploration 

and Operations

(Operations)

Human Exploration 

and Operations

(Exploration)

Accepted Requests

by Mission Directorate

FY14 - FY20

Sources of Accepted Requests Since 2003

47.5%

3.4%

3.1%

18.8%

3.3%

2.1%

16.5%

3.2%

1.6%

0.5% Anonymous

Center Management

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance

Safety and Mission Assurance at Centers

External to Agency

Office of Chief Engineer

Other NASA Offices

Program Management

NESC

Engineering and 

Scientific Organizations

52.2%

18.5%

16.3%

9.3%

2.0%

1.7%

Aeronautics 

Research

Broad Agency/

External

Science

NESC Overview 5
Assessments & Support Activities

143 In-Progress Requests

as of September 30, 2020

74 Completed Requests

in FY20

14% 12%

65% 55%

14%

3% 6%

4% 4%

23%

PRIORITY 2

Projects in the

design phase

PRIORITY 4

Work to avoid potential 

future problems

PRIORITY 5

Work to improve

a system

PRIORITY 1

Projects in the 

flight phase

PRIORITY 3

Known problems not being 

addressed by any project

Assessments typically include independent testing and/or analyses, the results of which are 

peer reviewed by the NESC Review Board (NRB) and documented in engineering reports. 

Support activities typically include providing technical expertise for consulting on program/

project issues, supporting design reviews, and other short-term technical activities.

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

assistance are evaluated by the NRB. If a request is approved, a team is formed that will perform independent testing, 

analyses, and other activities as necessary to develop the data needed to answer the original request. An NESC team’s 

findings, observations, and recommendations are rigorously documented within an engineering report and are peer reviewed 

and approved by the NRB prior to release to the stakeholder.

6 Assessments & Support Activities

NESC Review Board

Peer Review + Approval

Assessment 

Team Formed 

and Plan 

Developed 

and Approved

Document 

Findings, 

Observations, and 

Recommendations

Deliver Final 

Report to 

Stakeholders

Request 

Processed, 

Evaluated, and 

Accepted

Proceed with

Assessment

Testing, Data 

Collection, Modeling, 

& Analysis

Request

Submitted

by anyone

Submitted Requests

Evaluated Based 

on NESC Selection 

Priorities & OCE Risks NESC Core & Extended Team Members

Assessment Team

NESC Review Board

Approval

NESC Assessment Process
Drogue parachutes serve to stabilize and decelerate a spacecraft once it has descended well into 

the atmosphere. While drogues are designed to be robust in their deployment aerodynamic 

environments, they have varying degrees of tolerance to debris strikes. Both hard 

and soft debris can be liberated from a spacecraft during drogue deployment, 

but little data exist that quantify drogue damage tolerance to strikes by 

soft debris such as blanket insulation.

The NESC sponsored testing at Southwest Research 

Institute’s blast and impact facility to assess the damage 

tolerance of a modern drogue parachute to soft debris of 

different sizes and velocities. More than 15 tests were conducted 

to evaluate impact tolerance and quantify the robustness of the design. 

Some drogue elements were shown to be more damage tolerant than others, 

which can be used to improve the robustness of future designs.

Priority 1 Completed Assessments

Projects in the Flight Phase

Evaluation of the ORDEM3.1 Software Release

The Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) is NASA’s primary tool for modeling the Earth’s orbital debris environment and 

enables spacecraft designers to calculate the risk of meteoroid and orbital debris (M/OD) impacts to their spacecraft. After development of the latest version, ORDEM3.1, NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office requested the NESC to peer-review and exercise 

the new software to evaluate its performance and operational characteristics.

ORDEM categorizes orbital debris particles by size, material density, relative velocity, and direction, and also includes orbital 

parameters such as altitude and inclination. Version 3.1 focused on updates to these debris populations with the latest available 

measurement data to better inform debris impact risk assessments. The NESC team reviewed documentation and data and ran 

multiple test cases using specific orbits and starting years. The team examined trends in the resulting data, compared results to 

previous versions of ORDEM, and performed a typical M/OD risk assessment to examine ORDEM3.1’s effect on predicted debris 

penetration risks. The team also identified areas where model predictions may be improved.

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

Orbital objects > 10 cm 

diameter in 1970 (left) 

and 2019.

Evaluating Impact Tolerance of Softgoods on Drogue Parachutes

Priority 1

Assessments & Support Activities 7
Express Logistics Carrier Reverse

Capacitor Follow-on Testing

In an earlier assessment, the NESC investigated the effects of reverse-polarity installation of polarized capacitors possibly installed on the Expedite 

the Processing of Experiments to the Space Station (ExPRESS) Logistics 

Carrier (ELC) onboard the ISS. Subsequent to this work, the GSFC Safety 

and Mission Assurance (S&MA) team performed additional testing on similar 

capacitors under the same electrical configuration tested by the NESC team, 

but with an additional drying to simulate vacuum exposure time prior to application of reverse-bias testing. This more faithfully replicated the part history 

prior to powering up the ELC on orbit. This testing configuration indicated an 

increased capacitor life prediction than did the initial testing. As a result, the 

ISS Program tasked an NESC/Aerospace Corporation team with confirming 

the updated test results and the impact to previous capacitor life predictions. 

The assessment team conducted tests on capacitors of varying pedigree 

and corroborated the behavior seen by GSFC S&MA testing, leading the 

NESC team to conclude the initial life predictions were overly conservative. 

The new findings as well as data from other capacitor testing will serve as a 

reference for future studies of reversed-biased capacitors of this type. 

This work was performed by KSC, JSC, GSFC, 

and The Aerospace Corporation.

Assessing Risk of ISS RPCM Hot Mate/Demate During EVA

Positioned at multiple locations along the International Space Station’s (ISS) main truss are banks of circuit breaker devices referred to as remote power control modules (RPCM). Currently, when ISS equipment configurations change, these devices need 

relocating or replacing via an extravehicular activity (EVA), and can require a shutdown of critical ISS systems while astronauts 

perform the work. Shutting down large portions of ISS systems, however, carries operational risk to ISS and its crew, both while 

they are powered down and when bringing the systems back online. Therefore, the ideal approach would be to remove/replace 

the RPCMs while powered on, known as a hot mate/demate, but is not without risk to the EVA crew. To characterize the potential 

hazard, the ISS Program requested the NESC evaluate risk of potential molten metal generation due to electrical arcing during 

the mate/demate, and molten metal impacts on the EVA Mobility Unit (EMU). The NESC team conducted arcing tests at the Air 

Force Research Laboratory, MSFC, and GSFC, where EMU materials were exposed in vacuum to molten metal drops up to the 

maximum diameter possible based on the energy present in a potential arc. Testing and analysis revealed that these molten metal 

particles were unlikely to cause severe or catastrophic EMU damage. 

This work was performed by AFRC, GSFC, JSC, KSC, LaRC, and MSFC. NASA/TM-2019-220421

NASA astronaut Christina Koch installs Li-ion batteries 

in an ISS power system upgrade.

French astronaut Philippe Perrin examines the Canadian RPCM.

ELC-2 prior to its placement on the S3 truss.

8 Assessments & Support Activities

Priority 1
Determining Autoignition Temperatures of IPA and Ethanol

Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and ethanol are used extensively to clean and flush propulsion systems. When a commercial propulsion 

system designer requested NASA provide its available data on the autogenous ignition temperature (AIT) of IPA in a pressurized, 

pure oxygen environment, existing data were found to be focused primarily on the AIT of IPA in air, at lower pressures than the 

designer required. This led the NESC to experimentally determine the AITs of both IPA and ethanol in gaseous oxygen at various 

pressures.

To ensure soft-stowed payloads reach 

the ISS with no vibration-induced failures, 

NASA began to use a special ISS cargo 

software tool to calculate the attenuated 

random vibration environments and foam 

compression strain that foam-wrapped 

cargo will see in flight. Prior to the cargo 

tool’s widespread Agency use, the NESC 

performed a comprehensive evaluation 

of the theoretical basis behind the tool’s 

design, construction, and operation, and 

reviewed the results of another provider’s 

tool for comparison with the ISS cargo tool 

results. 

The assessment team reviewed isolation 

material testing, tool construction and supporting methodology, and current payload 

packaging and common isolation materials. The NESC team provided guidance for 

improving assessments of foam packing 

and test methods. 

This work was performed by GRC, MSFC, 

JSC, and LaRC. TM-2020-5001542 Orbital ATK’s Cygnus cargo spacecraft carried with more than 5,100 pounds of cargo

and research equipment on its fifth commercial resupply flight to the ISS.

Preventing Vibration-Induced Damage to ISS Cargo

Box and whiskers plots of AIT data.

Tests in oxygen were performed at the 

White Sands Test Facility at pressures up 

to 2,200 psi (15.2 MPa), which allowed 

comparisons with previous data and provided new data at relevant propulsion 

system operating conditions. The assessment team analyzed the test replicants to 

understand method-dependent variability 

and establish statistical significance. The 

tabulated data, which includes the associated pressure increases upon ignition, 

were provided to the appropriate programs and projects across NASA. See 

NESC Technical Bulletin 20-05 page 40. 

This work was performed by MSFC and 

WSTF. NASA/TM-2020-5004683, 

TB-20-05

Assessments & Support Activities 9

Priority 1
The study identified systemic, or underlying, issues that, if addressed, would have a maximum impact on reducing the frequency 

and/or severity of incidents, especially during flight tests and early operations. The nine most frequently recurring cause types 

were analyzed in detail. The final report summarized what was learned, compared the results to historical safety reports, provided 

a review of the analysis results by a cadre of human spaceflight subject matter experts, and discussed how findings can be used 

in developing effective mishap risk reduction strategies. See page 42-44 for a more in-depth article.

This work was performed by KSC, GRC, and ARC. NASA/TM-2020-220573

Upgrading COPV Liner 

Inspection System

A composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) undergoes pressure cycles where the metallic liner experiences plastic deformation, and so flaw detection in the 

liner is critical. The NESC recently upgraded its Multipurpose Pressure Vessel Scanner (MPVS), which is a 

robotic, nondestructive evaluation system used to detect 

critical surface and near-surface indications on COPV 

liners. The MPVS provides inspection capability and flaw 

mapping to a pressure vessel’s interior and exterior mold 

line surfaces. It was developed as an improvement to existing COPV liner dye-penetrant inspection methods. The 

MPVS could allow manufacturers to screen out cracks 

that have grown to unacceptably large sizes, potentially 

threatening spacecraft crew and mission success.

From left, astronauts White, Grissom, and Chaffee lost their lives 

in a January 27, 1967 fire in the Apollo Command Module during

testing at the launch facility.

As a follow-on to MPVS, the NESC assisted in a complete characterization of the system’s capability and the investigation of additional capabilities needed by the COPV community. This included addressing concerns with crack-detection capabilities on liner 

domes of varying thickness, refining eddy current (EC) crack sizes and resulting probability of detection (POD) estimates for the 

liner cylindrical sections, improving liner cylinder thickness measurements, demonstrating crack detection using a through-wall 

EC sensor (see photo), and development of an EC array probe to expedite liner crack inspection scan times. This follow-on work 

reduced uncertainty in the POD results and developed additional capabilities to optimize the system for high-production rate flight 

COPV inspections. 

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

Materials engineer Edgar Reyes of WSTF visually inspects a crack 

identified on the outer surface of a pressure vessel following an internal

eddy current through-wall nondestructive inspection.

10 Assessments & Support Activities

Priority 1

Human Spaceflight Mishap 

Recurring Causes Study

Major mishaps and significant close calls have marred 

the start of every human spaceflight program since three 

American astronauts were lost in the 1967 Apollo-1 fire. 

To understand the recurring cause trends from mishaps 

that occurred during flight tests and early operations, the 

NESC and NASA Safety Center studied eight mishaps 

during the Apollo, Soyuz, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and 

Constellation Programs, as well as commercial suborbital systems. The goal was to identify recurring causes 

to proactively reduce the risks of serious mishaps before 

upcoming NASA and commercial missions. 
Pilot Breathing Assessment (In-Progress Update)

United States Navy aircrew configuration

with integrated PBA instrumentation.

In 2017, the Navy requested the NESC provide an independent review 

of their efforts to address an increased occurrence of physiological episodes across their F/A-18 fleet. The NESC initiated the Pilot Breathing 

Assessment (PBA) to better understand human physiology and breathing 

behaviors in high-performance aircraft during operation.

The PBA team designed novel instrumentation and used advanced analysis to examine pilot physiological state and interaction with aircraft life 

support systems. NASA test pilots flew instrumented NASA F/A-18 and 

F-15 aircraft through pre-specified flight profiles while wearing specialized equipment augmented with an advanced sensor system. This sensor system collected data during flight such as breathing characteristics, 

gas flow, air composition, and aircraft environment. These data streams 

were aligned and examined using advanced analysis techniques to identify pilot/aircraft interactions with potential for negative cognitive and 

physiological impact.

To date, the NESC team has successfully completed 105 PBA sorties. A 

“first round” of about ~50 scripted flights with a full complement of instrumentation was completed at the end of FY19. After analysis of the initial 

dataset, a second set of ~50 scripted flights were designed to fill specific 

data gaps. The team found that certain flight activities were more likely to 

disrupt pilot breathing, and so additional flight profiles were developed to 

more closely examine the pilot breathing performance and aircraft conditions. Extensive data reduction was required to process over 250 million 

data points, which were analyzed via data visualization tools, summary 

statistics, and mixed effects models. A detailed NESC engineering report 

is currently in preparation for peer-review and release in early FY21. 

This work is being performed by LaRC, AFRC, ARC, GRC, GSFC,

JPL, JSC, WSTF, and also the EPA, UF, USN, and USAF.

In-Progress Assessments

• CCP Crew-1 TPS Peer Review

• CCP Booster Return Loads Reuse Implications

• EMU Sublimator Corrosion

• Orion Frangible Joint Threshold and Margins Analysis

• Ti-NTO Compatibility Cross-Program Impact 

and Lessons Learned

• Review of CCP Additive Manufacturing Program

• CCP Propellant and Pressurization COPV Support

• Pilot Breathing Assessment

• Validation of ISS Li-Ion Main Battery’s 

TR Mitigation Analysis and Design Features

Completed Support Activities

• CCP Software Review

In-Progress Support Activities

• CCP Launch Vehicle Orbital Tube Welding

POD Study Samples

• CCP Corrosion Mitigation Strategy

• Fire Cartridge Failure Investigation, Manufacturing, 

	 and Hardware Verification

• Hardware Development for COVID Applications

• ISS Battery Charge Discharge Unit Investigation 

• Materials Support to DC-8 Type A Mishap

• NESC Support of CCP Anomaly

• Rapid Slews for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Priority 1

 Assessments & Support Activities 11

Priority 1
Priority 2 Completed Assessments

Projects in the Design Phase

Predicting Wind-Induced Oscillations on Launch Vehicles

Once situated on the launch pad, launch vehicles are exposed to ground winds and their corresponding loads. Of particular interest 

is a vehicle response to these loads called resonant wind-induced oscillation (WIO), which can damage vehicle structures or payloads and interfere with guidance or launch systems. Resonant WIO is a design driver for launch vehicles and is typically mitigated 

through the use of external dampers and strict launch criteria. To evaluate the methods for predicting WIO used by the commercial 

launch industry, an assessment team conducted a wind tunnel test campaign to assess key viscous flow properties and their effect 

on launch vehicle WIO. Testing on vehicle models demonstrated aerodynamic flow states surrounding the vehicle in ground winds 

are sensitive to Reynolds number and that aerodynamic loads change with structural deformation, i.e., aeroelastic coupling. The 

study also simulated the Earth’s wind boundary layer for the first time in a large-scale facility at full-scale Reynolds number to investigate its effect on ground wind loads and WIO1

. Agency design guidance emphasizes the importance of aeroelastic scaling in predicting WIO behavior. The team developed a crewed launch vehicle ground wind loads operational placard on the basis of these data.

This work was performed by LaRC.

LVs exposed to ground winds can oscillate and cause damage or affect systems. 

Top: Example of vortex shedding off a cylinder. 

Left: A model of the ARES I-X was tested for WIO. 

1. T. Ivanco; D. Keller; J. Pinkerton; et. al.: Development of an Atmospheric-BoundaryLayer Profile at the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. 2018 AIAA SPACE and 

Astronautics Forum and Exposition.

Sketch from NASA-TM-X-50548

Oscillating Lift

Steady Lift

Steady Drag

Oscillating 

Drag

Vortex

Shedding

Steady

Ground-Wind

Profile

Atmospheric

Gusts and 

Turbulence

Priority 2

12 Assessments & Support Activities
Analysis of Propellant Tank Safe Life

Part of the safe-life demonstration of a propellant tank is understanding whether it is susceptible to environmentally assisted 

cracking, which is a process that promotes crack growth or higher crack growth rates than would occur without the presence of 

the environment. The NESC was engaged to help validate the safe life of a new propellant tank design. Sustained load tests were 

performed to determine if cracks in the tank weld would grow in the presence of monomethylhydrazine and mixed oxides of nitrogen propellants, common propellants used in spacecraft propulsion systems. For the tank under consideration, the NESC looked 

at the minimum detectable flaw size using the expected maximum design pressure. For the test, multiple pre-cracked material 

coupons were submerged in propellants and exposed to static loads that simulated anticipated flight conditions and elevated load 

conditions. The test coupons were monitored during the exposure test to measure crack growth. The NESC identified findings 

and observations in the areas of material characterization, tensile and fracture test results, fractographic inspection results, and 

propellant tank flaw analysis. 

This work was performed by LaRC, WSTF, KSC, and JSC.

Alternative O-Ring Materials for Hypergolic Propellant Systems

Propellant tanks within the Orion European Service Module are typical of tanks that are evaluated for safe service life.

The NESC tested multiple O-ring materials for hypergolic 

fluid-compatibility in support of the government and

commercial propulsion community.

NASA programs such as the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the 

Commercial Crew Program, Mars 2020, the Europa Clipper, and the 

International Space Station use O-rings to seal high-pressure lines that 

contain liquid engine propellants and gases. When material obsolescence caused an O-ring supplier to stop producing a popular product, 

an NESC assessment team began testing potential replacement candidates, with a focus on material compatibility with hypergolic propellants.

The team chose six candidate materials for evaluation. The test metrics included mass changes, swelling, hardness, tensile strength, and 

compression set for exposure periods of 2 days and one month. Three 

materials successfully completed the short- and long-duration testing 

and were considered compatible replacements for O-rings used in hypergolic propellant applications. See NESC Technical Bulletin 20-04 

page 39. 

This work was performed by MSFC, GRC, JSC, WSTF, KSC, and SSC. 

TM-2020-5001493; TB-20-04

Priority 2

 Assessments & Support Activities 13
Incorporating System 

Development Lessons Learned 

into Artemis

As software systems grow increasingly complex and provide more functionality for space systems, applying lessons 

learned from NASA’s past spacecraft developments, commercial partners, and other flight systems will be critical to 

the success of the Artemis missions. Comprising three programs – the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the Space 

Launch System, and the Exploration Ground Systems - the 

Artemis I mission will involve a complex integration and verification of hardware and software systems.

The NESC engaged an assessment team of systems engineering and software subject matter experts in a comprehensive review of a wide range of lessons learned potentially 

applicable to Artemis I and developed recommendations for 

the programs to help mitigate potential issues. The team focused on three key areas including testing improvements, 

systems engineering and integration, and software process 

compliance.

This work was performed by GSFC, JSC, 

LaRC, MSFC, and the NSC.

Human-rated flight hardware

and software systems are becoming 

increasingly complex.

Apollo 1961-1965

Shuttle 1981-2011

Orion 2020

Assessing the Aerospace

Valve Industrial Base

When NASA-wide propulsion control valve issues led to a 

perception of systemic quality and handling issues from an 

eroding supply chain, the NESC was asked to assess the 

aerospace valve industrial base as well as NASA’s acquisition 

practices. To identify risks and potential mitigation steps that 

might help avoid future problems, programs and projects were 

surveyed across multiple NASA Centers; valve vendor data 

were mined for issues; and valve vendors were surveyed to 

obtain feedback on any supply issues with NASA’s acquisition 

practices or valve design requirements. 

Data and evaluations showed no erosion or decline in the 

industry and actually indicated some growth. The assessment found that valve-related issues may be attributed to 

multiple NASA programs requiring concurrent development, 

qualification, and manufacture of numerous challenging and 

unique valve designs. 

This work was performed by MSFC, KSC, GRC, JSC, 

GSFC, and SSC. TM-2020-220577

Gas Generator Cycle

Fuel

Fuel TurbopumpOxidizer

Turbopump

Oxidizer

Nozzle 

Extension

Nozzle

MCC

Main Injector

Gas

Generator

MOV

MFV

GGFV GGOV

OTBV

MCC = Main Combustion Chamber

GG = Gas Generator

MFV = Main Fuel Valve

MOV = Main Oxidizer Valve

GGFV = Gas Generator Fuel Valve

GGOV = Gas Generator

 Oxidizer Valve

OTBV = Oxidizer Turbine

 Bypass Valve

Propulsion systems rely on complex valves 

to control gas and liquid flows.

Priority 2

14 Assessments & Support Activities
Guidance for Human Error Analysis

Mission safety and success rely on thousands of human tasks performed by operational personnel on the ground and in 

flight. The discipline of Human Factors leverages knowledge of human performance, which comprises both desired and

undesired behaviors, to inform system design. This includes designing in capabilities to adapt to unexpected events as well

as designing out “error traps” that provoke human error. Human error analysis (HEA) represents one approach for identifying

error traps, error-producing conditions, and the means to mitigate them. Conducting an HEA is a human-rating requirement

for space systems that enables a program to understand and manage hazards that could be caused by human error, understand the relative risks and uncertainties within the system design, and influence decisions throughout the system lifecycle.

To assist managers with HEA planning, execution, evaluation, and report preparation, the NESC developed a set of guidelines for meeting NASA’s HEA requirements. The guide offers a systematic approach from assembling an HEA team and identifying functions and tasks to identifying potential catastrophic errors and developing a human error management strategy.

See related article on page 35.

This work was performed by ARC and MSFC. TM-2020-5001486

NASA is working to achieve a human rating of the Artemis mission components.

Exploration Ground Systems

Gateway

Space Launch System

Lunar Landers

Orion

Artemis Generation Spacesuits

Priority 2

 Assessments & Support Activities 15
SLS Mobile Launcher

Model Review

NASA’s Mobile Launcher (ML) will physically support the

Space Launch System (SLS)/Orion Multi-Purpose Crew

Vehicle and ground support systems during launch vehicle 

processing, rollout, launch, and post-launch securing operations. As the ML was readied for the SLS, the NESC was

asked to review the dynamic finite element models of the

ML to determine how well they matched design drawings 

and reflected the as-built configuration. 

The NESC undertook 20 system-level modeling evaluations, which included an evaluation of the ML tower, ML 

base, and umbilicals, for consistency with design drawings, 

mass properties, and visual observations. Potential issues

identified in the model reviews were then prioritized for a

more in-depth review, which included trade studies and independent analyses performed to understand the potential 

areas of concern. As a result, findings, observations, and

recommendations were provided to the Exploration Ground

Systems Program and KSC Engineering.

This work was performed by LaRC, JSC, 

GRC, and ARC. TM-2019-220418

The SLS ML is shown on

a crawler transporter.

Priority 2

16 Assessments & Support Activities
Lift-off Modeling and Simulation

of T-0 Umbilicals for SLS

A series of umbilical lines from the ML tower to the SLS will provide power, fuel, and communications until they are released at 

lift-off. The NESC undertook an effort to verify dynamic modeling 

and simulation of umbilical preload attachment and separation at 

lift-off. To determine the loads induced by the umbilicals on the 

vehicle at release, an integrated non-linear static and dynamic 

analysis was performed for the SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Programs as an 

important step in evaluating the vehicles’ structural integrity and 

ensuring crew safety.

The NESC developed a lift-off pad separation modeling and 

simulation capability inclusive of umbilical separation dynamics. 

This included a framework and forcing functions for assessing 

the SLS core stage umbilical separation, vehicle stabilizer system nonlinear struts, pad separation, extensible column re-contact, and aft strut cryogenic shrinkage at SLS lift-off. The fully 

nonlinear, flexible multibody simulation can accurately capture 

the loads from prelaunch stacking to umbilical and lift-off pad 

separation. 

This work was performed by GRC, JSC, LaRC, KSC, and MSFC.

TM-2020-5001550

Validating SLS Core Stage 

Pressurization Systems 

In preparation for the launch of Artemis I, the NESC led an 

independent verification and validation of the SLS core stage 

pressurization systems to confirm they would meet operating 

requirements for worst-case cold environmental conditions. 

As part of the NESC team, NASA’s Launch Services Program 

(LSP) performed the modeling and simulation for this assessment using models and analysis techniques LSP developed 

for the Delta IV upper stage and anchored with flight data. The 

modeling effort utilized coupled thermal and fluid models that ran 

concurrently, exchanging requisite information between the various models at specified time increments during the prelaunch 

and ascent timelines. The integrated models were used to perform predictions for the SLS main propulsion system Green Run 

and ascent flight-operating conditions. The predictions for worstcase cold environmental conditions indicate that the propulsion 

system pressures remain within redline/abort limits throughout 

Green Run and ascent. The models were delivered to the SLS 

Program for continued development and operation. 

This work was performed by MSFC, KSC, GRC, and SSC.

Illustration of SLS Block 1B crew 

configuration showing vehicle stabilizer

system and umbilical connections between 

the SLS and the ML base and tower.

Priority 2

 Assessments & Support Activities 17
Effects of Natural Aging on 

Aluminum-Lithium Plate

Cryogenic propellant tank panels are commonly manufactured 

using thick-section aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) plate. With long 

lead times required to obtain the material, Al-Li plate is often 

procured in large quantities to support fabrication and multiple 

tank builds. Because the material may be stored for extended 

periods of time, the heat-treated Al-Li can, depending on the 

storage environment, undergo a natural aging process that affects tensile and fracture toughness properties. 

To help determine the underlying effects of natural aging, an 

NESC team performed a detailed metallurgical and mechanical property characterization of Al-Li plate. The team performed 

tensile and fracture-toughness testing at ambient temperature 

to identify anomalous macroscopic or microscopic characteristics. Results indicated natural aging produced a measurable 

change in room temperature tensile and fracture properties. 

However, the subsequent final thermal treatment detected no 

mechanical property difference with “nominally” stored solution-treated material. Recommendations were given to use 

specific nondestructive evaluation and/or tensile testing for 

each material lot subjected to long-term storage prior to use to 

verify the results of this study.

This work was performed by MSFC.

The SLS core stage Al-Li liquid hydrogen propellant tank shown 

after welding at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility.

Safeguarding Engine

Test Stand Operations 

SSC is NASA’s largest rocket engine test facility, used by over 

30 companies and agencies for engine testing. Following an increase in testing tempo and reported close calls that could have 

resulted in personnel injury at the SSC E-1 test stand complex, 

the NESC was asked to identify potential operational hazards 

from a human factors perspective and provide recommendations for mitigations. The E-1 test stand facility comprises three 

cells used to test engine components such as injectors or combustion chambers that require high-pressure and high flow rate 

industrial water, cryogenic, and non-cryogenic fluids. 

During its assessment, the NESC team worked to gain insight 

into the effects of demanding test schedules, increased workload, and fatigue on personnel and operations. The team observed tests and reviewed documents and processes, including 

the SSC Close Call Reporting System and the NASA Mishap Information System databases. The NESC provided recommendations to the SSC Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for 

policy, procedure, and organizational modifications regarding 

planning and scheduling; workforce roles and responsibilities; 

training; and communication that could help mitigate the risks of 

personnel injury and hardware damage.

This work was performed by ARC, MSFC, KSC, JSC, and SSC. The E Complex engine test stand at SSC.

Priority 2

18 Assessments & Support Activities
In-Progress Assessments

• Independent Operational Modal Analysis of Dynamic 

Rollout Test Data

•	 Particle Ignition in a Peroxide Propulsion System

• CCP Fluid Systems Contamination

• LaRC Transonic Dynamic Tunnel Review

•	 CFD Assessment of AA-2 Axial Force Anomaly

• Lunar Meteoroid Ejecta Model Review

• ESD Integrated Hazard Review

•	 Effects of Helium Concentration on TEA-TEB

	 Combustion in Oxygen

•	 Development of Fire Suppression System Requirements

•	 Examination of Time-Triggered Ethernet in Artemis Architecture

•	 Study for GSFC LISA Laser

• Biocide Impacts on Life Support and EVA Architectures

•	 EGS ICPS Umbilical Modeling Evaluation

•	 Cyclomatic Complexity Evaluation

• Tube Test Coupon for COPV Mechanics

• Anaerobic Hydrogen Detection Sensor

• Orion Crew Module Side Hatch Analysis

•	 Guidelines for an Avionics Radiation Hardness Assurance

• Hypervelocity Impact Testing of Kevlar KM2+

• Space Launch System High Reynolds Number Testing

• CCP Ascent Stability

•	 Qualification of Radiographic NDE Techniques

• CCP Post-Flight Reference Radiation Environments

• Review of Analysis to Support Midpoint Monitoring in Batteries

• Material Compatibility and EAC Data for Metals

in Hypergolic Propellants

• CCP Autonomous Flight Termination System

• CCP Main Parachute NDE

•	 CCP Parachute Pack Ground Extraction Testing

•	 Spacecraft Safety Equipment Assessment

•	 Aerodynamic Buffet Flight Test

• Thermocouple Interference During High-Speed Earth Entry

• Lead H2 Pop During SLS RS-25 Start

•	 Evaluation of Occupant Protection Requirement 	 	 	

	 Verification Approach by CCP Partners

• NESC Peer Review of ESD Integrated Vehicle Modal Test, 

Model Correlation, DFI, and Flight Loads Readiness

• Orion Titanium Hydrazine Tank Weld - 

Environmentally Assisted Cracking

• Infrared Laser Sensor Technology Readiness and Maturation

•	 Risk Reduction of Orion Government-Furnished ECLS

•	 Effects of Humidity on Dry Film Lubricant Storage & Performance

•	 Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group

• Stress Ruptures COPV

• Independent Modeling and Simulation for CCP EDL

• SLS Aerosciences Independent Consultation and Review

• Reaction Wheel Performance for NASA Missions

•	 Exploration Systems Independent Modeling and Simulation

• Launch Abort System Risk Mitigation

•	 Peer Review of the MPCV Aerodynamic/Aerothermal

Database Models and Methods

• Helium Evolution from Helium-Saturated Hypergolic Propellants

Completed Support Activities

• Evaluation of ABSL Moli-M Cell Li-Ion Batteries for L2 Missions

•	 CFD/DTA Analysis for a CCP Propulsion System

• European Solar Array Wing Deploy Model Review

•	 EGS Mobile Launcher 1 Weld

•	 CCP Thruster Design Modifications

• Review of Failure Analysis for Bellow Cracking Issue

• SLS Flight Computer 

• Technical Standards Evaluation and Streamlining Approach

•	 Human Exploration and Operations Program Status Assessment

• Propulsion System Pintle Erosion Investigation

• OFT-1 Entry Risk Assessment 

• Hydrazine Tank Investigation 

•	 Oxygen Compatibility Assessment

• Capsule Water Landing Structural Design Reliability 

• Cryogenic Fluid Management Feasibility Assessment for NTP

• Pyrotechnic Smart Initiator Redesign 

•	 Mars 2020 Wheel/Flexure Stiffness and Strain Capacity

• Review of SLS SOW

• NASCAP Integrated Spacecraft Charging Analysis

• Service Module Pressure Control Assembly 

• Active Mass Translator on Near-Earth Asteroid Scout

•	 EGS Crew Module Test Article Design Peer Review

• Pegasus ICON Mission

• ESD Dynamic System and Flight Test Analysis and Evaluation

•	 Orion CM/SM Separation Nut Test Fixture

•	 WFF Super Pressure Balloon Data Acquisition Design

• Orion CM Recovery During Underway Testing and Artemis I

• Mars 2020 Heatshield Structural Review

•	 Waterflow Pulse Test Support to Develop RL-10 Pogo Model 		

Propulsion Terms

• SLS Booster Nozzle Throat Plug Debris

•	 Orion CM/SM Separation Bolt Life

• Accelerance Decoupling for Modal Test

• AA-2 Independent Review Team

• VAB Pile Cap Peer Review

•	 Technical Support for GOES-R Arcjet On-Orbit Anomaly

• Adiabatic Demagnetization Refrigeration on

SOFIA Science Instruments

• NASA Support to Boeing OFT-1 Software Review

In-Progress Support Activities

• CCP Sensor Anomaly Investigation

• NAFTU Software Engineering Review 

•	 Flex Harness Technical Support

• Rotordynamic Analysis for Europa Clipper

• Mars 2020 Sample Tube Cracking

•	 Circuit Board Signal Integrity/Power Analysis and Training

for CLPS Missions

• CCP Ascent Cover 

• Ocean Color Instrument Engineering Test Unit Anomaly 

• Space Charging of Ocean Color Instrument Rotating Mechanism

• Evaluation of CCP Fire Suppression

• Support for NASA P-3B Aircraft Anomaly 

• CCP 1553 Dropped Commands

• Remote Analog Interface Unit

•	 Support to Blue Origin, New Glenn Launch Vehicle

•	 MPCV Welded Coupon Autofrettage Crack Growth Tests

• Evaluating Risk of an Alternative Pyro Lot Acceptance Test Plan

•	 SE&I Support to CCP DCRs

• Review of SLS FTS Battery Cell Out Test Procedure

•	 Orion, NDSB2, & Gateway Material Electrical Properties Support

• Orion Spacecraft Low-g Slosh Performance and Stability 

• Orion Artemis I Spectrometer

• Power Electronics Technical Support for Electric Propulsion

• Hydrodynamics Support for the Orion CM Uprighting System

•	 CCP Parachute Flight/Ground Tests and Vendor Packing/Rigging

• Super Resolution Post-Processing of Air-to-Air Imagery of

CCP High Altitude Parachute Test

• NOVICE Radiation Assessment

•	 SLS Design Certification Review

•	 Bond Verification Plan for Orion’s Molded Avcoat Block	

Heatshield Design

Priority 2

Priority 2

 Assessments & Support Activities 19
Priority 3 Completed Assessments

Known Problems not Being Addressed by any Project

Transient Combustion Modeling for Hypergolic Engines

Lithium-Ion Battery Safety

Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries provide energy-dense power storage

solutions that are lightweight and low volume and are extensively used

for human spaceflight applications. On the ISS, Li-ion batteries store

power from the solar array wings and power the ISS extravehicular

mobility units and hand tools. However, Li-ion cells pose an inherent

risk of thermal runaway (TR), a rapid release of stored electrochemical

energy, which can be triggered by physical or electrochemical abuse or 

an electrical short. Within a battery, TR in a single cell can rapidly propagate to adjacent cells resulting in a potentially catastrophic event.

The NESC is focused on designing safe, high-performance Li-ion batteries. This requires a thorough understanding of the thermal energy

that is liberated during TR. Additionally, the NESC has been involved

in basic research by measuring the fractional energy yield and effluent/composition ejected from a cell in TR. Insights gained from this

work have improved thermal modeling of Li-ion cells and batteries.

Techniques to measure TR energy yield developed by the NESC will

benefit Li-ion cell and battery design in commercial applications.

This work is being performed by JSC, GRC, KSC, and MSFC.

Orion’s European Service Module uses multiple hypergolic engines.

Hypergolic engines provide maneuvering thrust on many 

spacecraft, and can experience transient combustion issues 

including start-up pressure oscillations and overshoots, ignition delays, and transient thrust excursions. During the Apollo 

Program, NASA performed significant testing and implemented hardware-specific mitigation approaches to address transient combustion issues. While those operational mitigations 

were generally successful, there was limited feedback into 

engine designs and little insight into foundational causes. 

An NESC assessment team performed fundamental propellant testing and developed 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensional models 

during a recent investigation into hypergolic engine transient 

combustion processes. The models described the interrelationships between operational parameters (e.g., flows, 

pressures, timing, etc.) and combustion chamber dynamic 

responses. The results will help designers and modelers understand relevant environments and inform test engineers of 

instrumentation best practices to help capture relevant behaviors. The user community will also benefit by preventing 

damage to hardware and designing safer and more efficient 

start-up sequences. See page 32 for additional detail.

This work was performed by LaRC, MSFC, KSC, JSC, and WSTF.

Priority 3

20 Assessments & Support Activities

Expedition 63 astronaut 

Chris Cassidy works to 

install Li-ion batteries on 

the ISS truss structure.
Space Weather Architecture

Sustained exploration of the Moon and Mars requires a space weather 

monitoring capability to warn crews of approaching hazards from solar 

energetic charged particles.

Since the final human Moon landing in 1972, all human space 

exploration has taken place in low-inclination low Earth orbit, 

where the Earth’s magnetosphere provides significant protection from harmful space radiation. But for journeys beyond 

low Earth orbit to destinations in cislunar space and Mars, 

new monitoring infrastructure and operational procedures 

will be required to protect astronauts from space radiation 

hazards.

To help reduce these radiation risks for crewed and robotic 

systems operating in the inner heliosphere in orbits about 

Earth, cislunar space, and Mars, the NESC reviewed prior 

and current NASA, NOAA, and DoD work on space weather 

monitoring and forecast architectures to understand gaps in 

knowledge and status of existing space environment monitoring infrastructure. They also assessed operational response 

time for space weather monitoring, reviewed the status of relevant space weather forecasting tools, and assessed solar 

energetic particle threshold levels for exploration missions. 

The data gathered were used to develop options for a robust, 

cost-effective space weather situational awareness architecture to reduce radiation risks for human and robotic deep 

space exploration.

This work was performed by MSFC, JSC, GSFC, 

JPL, LaRC, NOAA, and the U.S. Air Force.

NASA/TM-2020-5000837

The Consequences of New Hydrazine Production Process FID Signal

Time (min)

Acetone

MEK

Toluene

Hydrazine

Testing of HPH samples at KSC yielded extraneous, unidentified

peaks in the carbonaceous assay when analyzing HPH made 

from a newer ketazine method.

Hydrazine dominates the class of hypergolic liquid propellants used for rocket propulsion and is widely used in auxiliary power units and thrusters for satellites and spacecraft. 

New methods to produce ketazine-derived high-purity hydrazine (HPH) have shown the presence of extraneous, 

unknown organic byproducts from the synthesis processes. 

To understand if these byproducts could affect the long-term 

storage of HPH or propulsion performance, the NESC led 

a full organic and elemental analysis of hydrazine samples 

as well as a round-robin style test protocol with numerous 

government and contractor laboratories. The team identified 

and quantified organic compounds and developed procedural guidelines for future analyses that will benefit the propulsion community as it responds to the adoption of this HPH 

commodity. Recommendations will be made to U.S. Air Force 

owners of MIL-PRF-26536G, Performance Specification - 

Propellant, Hydrazine for possible incorporation into a future 

revision. See NESC Technical Bulletin 20-08, page 41. 

This work was performed by KSC, MSFC,

JSC, WSTF, JPL, and GSFC. TB-20-08

Priority 3

 Assessments & Support Activities 21

FID - Flame Ionization Detector

MEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Characterizing Damage Tolerance Life

in COPVs

Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) methods have traditionally been used 

to characterize the damage tolerance life of elastically responding components, 

but may have limitations when predicting fatigue-crack growth-rate behavior in the 

thin metal liners of COPVs. The NESC initiated an assessment to develop data 

to define these limitations by performing fatigue and fracture testing and LEFM 

analyses, and developing a finite element model to compare crack behaviors. The 

results included an analysis approach to identify where LEFM small-scale and 

constrained plasticity assumptions are violated, and found that measured crack 

growth behavior gradually diverges from LEFM predictions as the crack depth approaches the liner thickness. They also demonstrated a test-based methodology 

for validating damage tolerance life requirements by performing material evaluation, autofrettage crack growth tests, and damage tolerance life tests. These tests 

and analyses provided evidence to support best practices to comply with COPV 

standards for damage tolerance life.

This work was performed by KSC, GRC, LaRC, JSC WSTF, JPL, and MSFC.

NASA/TM-2020-5006765 Illustration of COPV major components.

Fluid Fitting

Dome 

Section

Metallic

Liner

Composite

Overwrap

Barrel

Section

Metallic Liner

Composite Overwrap

Planned missions like the NASA-ISRO Synthetic 

Aperture Radar satellite use radiation-hardened 

single-board computers.

Qualifying an Updated Flight Computer

The RAD750 radiation-hardened single-board computer has been the standard 

flight computer for many NASA and DoD projects and instruments. Because of 

part obsolescence and the need for increased performance and capabilities, an 

updated design was needed that would meet the conditions and environments 

for the majority of NASA space missions. The NESC teamed with other NASA 

directorates to oversee the qualification of the new version of the RAD750 as 

well as review the analyses associated with the updated design. This joint effort 

prevented multiple programs from having to develop and qualify revised boards 

for their systems. The updated RAD750 successfully completed acceptance and 

qualification testing, and can be used not only for future applications, but as a 

backward-compatible component to existing hardware.

Priority 3

22 Assessments & Support Activities

Abrasive lunar dust caused issues

with EVA suit joints.

Understanding Lunar Dust

Lunar dust is an Agency and industry concern affecting most mission subsystems.

Precursor landers on the Moon will need to ascertain dust characteristics that will 

influence hardware design and provide toxicology data to safeguard crew health. 

To aid in that effort, the NESC hosted the 2nd Lunar Dust Workshop in early 

February 2020 focusing on the impact of lunar dust on human exploration. The 

workshop addressed concerns about the physical nature of the dust, its impact on 

human health, and its impact on lunar surface systems and operations. The goal 

was to provide insight for lunar mission designers and engineers and for mission 

planners deciding on payload selections for future lunar missions.

This work was performed by JSC, JPL, LaRC, and ARC.
Preparing for Composite SBKF Testing (In-Progress Update)

Removal of 8-ft-diameter sandwich composite test article from the 

tool after fabrication and before preparation for test at MSFC.

The Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) assessment was chartered to develop and experimentally validate new analysis-based buckling knockdown factors 

for stability-critical metallic and composite launch vehicle structures. The project has provided new knockdown factors for metallic structures to the SLS core 

stage, which resulted in documented mass, cost, and 

schedule savings, and a new update to NASA SP-8007

Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders is currently 

being finalized. The current focus of the SBKF team is 

developing buckling analysis approaches for sandwich 

composite cylinders that can be used to develop new 

buckling design factors. To support this effort, a series 

of large-scale 8-ft-diameter test articles are being tested to validate these analyses.

The fourth and final such large-scale test article was 

fabricated in fall 2019 and is being prepared for testing 

in November 2020. In order to ensure that the SBKF 

research is state of the art, a number of external collaborations have also been established with domestic and 

international partners in government, academia, and 

industry. There is an active collaboration between the 

SBKF team and the Delft University of Technology in 

the Netherlands. This collaboration is an effort to establish rigorous scaling laws for the buckling response of 

sandwich composite shells and to investigate the buckling response of single-piece composite cone-cylinder 

shells.

In-Progress Assessments

• Unconservatism of LEFM Analysis Post-Autofrettage

•	 Medical Ceramic Oxygen Generator (M-COG)

• Honeywell MIMU Operational Life Investigation

•	 COTS Guidance for all Mission Risk Classification

• Characterization of Internal Insulation Thermal Performance

• Soyuz Landing Reconstructions

• Occupant Protection Testing

• Solar Wind Radiation Damage of Metallic Coatings

•	 Capacitor Microstructure Analysis/Tools Development

•	 Shuttle Enterprise MLG Fracture

•	 Parachute Reefing Line Cutter Modification & Qualification

• Wireless EDL Instrumentation Validation 

• Microthrusters for Low-Jitter Space Observatory 

Precision Attitude Control

•	 Guidelines for Battery TR on Robotic Missions

• Auroral Charging Threat Assessment

• Creation of Agency Standards for Additive Manufacturing 

• Safe, High Power Li-ion Battery Module Design

• Southern Hemisphere Meteoroid Environment Measurements

• MMOD Pressure Vessel Failure Criteria

• Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Proposal

Completed Support Activities

• Restore-L RPO and Kodiak Systems

• Lunar Lander Standing Acceleration Limits

Standards Development

• DART Spacecraft SmartNav Independent Review Team

In-Progress Support Activities

• Arecibo Failure Support

•	 GRC High Voltage Fault/Transient Anomalies

• Human Factors Support for OSAM-1

•	 Update Human Systems Integration Practitioner’s Guide

• Technical Readiness Assessment of Lidar Instruments for ACCP SET

• Advanced Weapons Elevator CVN-78

•	 DARPA Experimental Space Plane

• Revision of NASA-HDBK-4002A

• Lunar Lander Mentor Team

• PAMELA Radiation Data Recovery

• 6 Degree-of-Freedom Trajectory Simulation

with Integrated CFD Aerodynamics

• Completion of NASA-HNBK-5010A

Priority 3

Priority 3

 Assessments & Support Activities 23
Priority 4 Completed Assessments

Work to Avoid Potential Future Problems

Evaluating Nuclear Propulsion Technologies

for Future Mars Missions

Both nuclear electric propulsion/chemical propulsion (NEP/Chem) and nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) architectures are

being considered both internal and external to NASA for missions to Mars during the 2030s. To help inform current architecture development efforts, the NESC recently assessed a range of components and systems to determine their technical

maturity and potential to reach flight qualification by 2035.

The team evaluated 26 systems and 72 technologies including NTP and NEP reactors and fuels, NEP auxiliary systems, and

cross-cutting technologies. The system/component maturity was assessed using Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and

the Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2). The latter is a predictive description of what is required to move a system or

component from one TRL to another. Lower AD2 values imply less risk moving to higher TRLs. The team found the majority

of critical technologies evaluated are at a relatively high AD2 for reaching flight qualification, but could be matured to support

a 2035 crewed mission to Mars, given a dedicated and well-funded program.

This work was performed by MSFC, GRC, JPL, GRC, KSC, and JSC.

NASA/TM-2020-5001631

Visionary view of 

an NTP-enabled 

spacecraft mission.

In-Progress Assessments

• Shock Prediction Advancement: Transient Finite Energy Predictor

• FPMU Data Processing Algorithm Development and Analysis

•	 BON Galactic Cosmic Ray Model Improvements

•	 Updating RefProp with Nitrogen Tetroxide Properties

• Wire and Wire Bundle Ampacity Testing and Analysis

• Solderless Interconnects and Interposers

• EEE parts Copper Wire Bonds for Space Programs

Completed Support Activities

•	 State of In-Space Propellant Tanker/Transfer Technology

In-Progress Support Activities

•	 Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy Development

•	 AFRL/STMD Advanced Radiation-Hardened Memory

Priority 4

Priority 4

24 Assessments & Support Activities
Priority 5 Completed Assessments

Work to Improve a System

Impacts from orbital debris can damage or destroy space 

vehicles. To limit the growth of the orbital debris population across widely used orbits, NASA requires space vehicles such as satellites and launch vehicle stages undergo 

a decommissioning. Called spacecraft passivation, the process removes stored energy from a space vehicle that has 

reached the end of its mission—but will remain in orbit—to 

help reduce the risk of high-energy releases like explosions 

or fragmentations that would produce orbital debris. An 

NESC team conducted an assessment to develop guidelines 

for spacecraft designers and operators to ensure they are 

meeting NASA passivation requirements. The team reviewed 

literature; evaluated pressurized systems to recommend 

guidelines for acceptable depressurization targets; provided 

a process to determine the number of meteoroid/orbital debris 

particles a spacecraft may encounter in its passivated state; 

and demonstrated the potential risk associated with pressure 

increases due to residual propellant decomposition.

Bridging the Gaps Between Multibody Dynamics and GNC 

Flexible multibody dynamics modeling of launch 

vehicles and satellites is often critical for the design 

and analysis of guidance, navigation, and control 

(GNC) systems and for evaluating structural loads. 

While the GNC and structures disciplines share a 

need for high-fidelity structural models to predict 

dynamic behavior, fragmented modeling approaches 

have historically persisted because the needs of 

the disciplines differ. The NESC developed a toolchain to improve the process of generating and 

integrating structural dynamics data for use in multibody aerospace system models. The work addressed common issues by 

developing a finite element model (FEM) to GNC modeling pipeline using a general multibody dynamics framework. The work resulted in a tool that streamlines the processing between structural analysis models and GNC models. Test cases were developed 

to emphasize dynamic coupling between bodies and the results compared against models developed by MSFC Engineering. The 

tool was further demonstrated using a FEM developed for the SLS core stage and was separately used to develop GNC flexible 

body models for an NESC assessment to reduce jitter in science missions requiring challenging pointing stability requirements. 

This work was performed by KSC, JPL, MSFC, GSFC, and JSC.

In-Progress Assessments

• Flight Mechanics Analysis Tools Interoperability

and Component Sharing

• Improvements to the Flight Analysis and Simulation Tool 

Completed Support Activities

• Determining the Composition and Depth of the Lakes on Titan

• Agile Software Development Methodology Use Summary

In-Progress Support Activities

•	 U.S. Army: Reentry Aeroballistics Trajectory & Thermal Protection

• DARPA TRADES Study

Priority 5

This work was performed by LaRC, JSC, GSFC, GRC, KSC, and JPL. NASA/TM-2020-5001631

Guidelines for Spacecraft Passivation

Monthly Number of Objects in Earth by Object Type

Year

Number of Objects

Total Objects

Fragmentation Debris

Spacecraft

Mission-related Debris

Rocket Bodies

Priority 5

 Assessments & Support Activities 25
Innovation that Impacts All NASA Missions: 

Improving How We Engineer Our Systems

John F. Kennedy set the tone for NASA’s culture in 1961 during his famous speech on going to the

Moon, “We choose to go to the Moon not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard; because that goal

will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one 

that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone...” 

That culture has never faded, even across NASA’s diverse spectrum of missions. The continuous challenge to do what is hard or 

near impossible includes the requirement for innovation. Innovation is the importance of what we do, but also how we do it. With 

a goal of improving the way NASA’s workforce engineers its systems, the Systems Engineering (SE) Technical Discipline Team 

(TDT) has partnered with numerous facets of the NASA workforce to better enable innovation in how we work. Over the past year, 

three diverse teams made progress toward that goal by looking at the way we levy technical standards, improving understanding 

and integrated risk (cost, schedule, and technical), reducing project risk by better management of mass growth, and moving SE 

into the model based digital domain. A brief summary of each team’s efforts follows.

26 Innovative Techniques

a. b.

Via its Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Infusion And Modernization Initiative (MIAMI), the NESC 

SE TDT partnered with the Human Research Program’s Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element 

(https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/elements/exmc) at JSC. ExMC has adopted SE principles and tools (MBSE and 

the Systems Modeling Language) to develop an initial architecture and requirements for a future exploration medical system. MIAMI is assisting the ExMC work by providing an MBSE modeler who is matrixed 

to ExMC, one NASA MBSE Community of Practice (CoP) meeting per month dedicated to responding to 

ExMC’s needs, and any available/needed Agency MBSE infrastructure. In return, MIAMI is receiving modeling lessons learned, feedback to the MIAMI Leadership Team on available MBSE resources, and data 

needed to communicate MBSE successes and challenges to their SE TDT peers.The partnership has been 

mutually beneficial to ExMC, the SE TDT, and the greater NASA MBSE community. With MIAMI support, ExMC architected their 

system model, developed a model management plan, better defined their MBSE hiring and training needs, provided guidance to 

junior modelers, and developed ideas to push the boundaries of model usage.

As a return benefit, the MBSE community received a sample model architecture, an updated model management plan template, 

and valuable discussions at the MBSE CoP, where the ExMC presented ideas that had not been considered before. Ideas included the characteristics of good system modelers, how to manage model configuration, and using models with non-modeling tools. 

Notes from all these lively and well-attended CoP discussions are on the NASA Engineering Network MBSE website (https://nen.

nasa.gov/web/mbse/). Beyond this, ExMC’s input on what will be necessary to grow NASA’s MBSE community and capability (e.g., 

modeler skillsets) continues to inform and ground in reality MIAMI’s recommendations to NASA’s Digital Transformation initiative. 

For more information, contact Kerry McGuire, kerry.m.mcguire@nasa.gov.

ExMC: Systems Analysis and Integration Using MBSE
a). MBSE is being applied to help architect the ExMC, which is pushing the boundary of space medical systems to care for future astronauts. 

b). A proposed Mars sample return mission development project would benefit from using the NASA-endorsed ANSI/AIAA standard: Mass 

Properties Control for Space Systems. c). New approaches to streamlining design and constructions standards will benefit projects like the

Gateway Power and Propulsion and Habitation and Logistics Outpost. 

 Innovative Techniques 27

c.

NASA/JPL: Enterprise Approach to Mass Properties Control 

In August 2019, a team of NESC and NASA subject matter experts (SME) issued a report regarding mass 

growth. It included recommendations to initiate the development and sustainment of an expanded mass 

growth database as an Agency resource and reforms in how programs and projects estimate, manage, 

and report mass properties based on the NASA-endorsed ANSI/AIAA S-120A-2015 [2019] standard, Mass 

Properties Control for Space Systems. The intent is to reap the benefits of a more common approach 

across NASA in managing and controlling mass growth and of using a common terminology among NASA 

Centers and its contractors. Historical mass growth data, consolidated in a single place, will help programs 

and projects in establishing Mass Growth Allowance (MGA) factors and mass margins above MGA that can 

reduce the risk of mass issues and potential cost overruns. To date, the NESC recommendations have resulted in major changes in mass management and control requirements and recommended best practices at JPL and other NASA 

Centers. Beyond Center-level actions, the NESC has engaged with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to promote the use of 

the ANSI/AIAA standard’s terminology and calculations in future data collections for NPR 7120.5-mandated Cost Analysis Data 

Requirements documents. For more information, contact Robert Shishko, robert.shishko@jpl.nasa.gov.

The NASA Technical Standards Process Improvement pilot activity initiated by the Habitation and Logistics 

Outpost (HALO) Project seeks to improve the way that NASA levies and manages technical standards by 

1) moving from document-centric to data-centric (databases) management of the requirements; 2) incorporating important attributes into the database so that applicability, tailoring, and information management 

is streamlined; and 3) providing technical recommendations on acceptable approaches for compliance 

evidence. The effort is a fleet-leader on how to streamline the standards deployment, assessment, and 

long-term verification process, while also improving the allocation of resources based on mission risk. 

NASA Technical Fellows participated in this review and provided important input and support for the assessment of Design and Construction (D&C) standards for the HALO project. The approach “shredded” the requirements documents into a database of individual requirements with fields to populate describing the requirement type and compliance approach. Overall, the pilot activity is an important first step in properly assessing and flowing D&C standards to NASA’s contractors 

and partners. NESC systems engineering and integration SMEs reviewed the HALO pilot deployment activity for managing and 

implementing design and construction standards. The SMEs identified advantages and disadvantages of the pilot activity and 

offered suggestions for improving the standards streamlining effort in the future. For more information, contact Jennifer Devolites, 

jennifer.devolites@nasa.gov.

HALO: Modernized Application of Design & Construction Standards
The NESC has developed a fully nonlinear lift-off pad separation capability inclusive of umbilical separation dynamics for 

the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground 

Systems programs. This flexible multibody capability allows for 

characterization of umbilical separation at lift-off (i.e., T-0) and to 

perform relative clearance analyses when vehicle rise time is a 

critical parameter1

. For the subject SLS lift-off transient coupled 

loads analysis (CLA), the separating interfaces, include Vehicle 

Support Posts to booster aft skirts, Vehicle Stabilizer System 

(VSS) to core stage (CS), and the CS umbilicals (Figure 1). 

This work provides a fully nonlinear, flexible multibody simulation for accurately capturing the loads from prelaunch stacking 

to umbilical and pad separation at lift-off. The prelaunch stacking and cryogenic shrinkage simulations lock-in the preloads 

and provide the initial conditions to the lift-off pad separation. 

It is the sudden transient release of these preloads, often referred to as the lift-off “twang,” that can result in high vehicle 

load indicator dynamic response. For the event of umbilical 

secondary disconnect, the multibody simulations solve for the 

umbilical force time-histories at the vehicle interfaces. These 

nonlinear interface forces are transient with significant peak 

amplitudes and quick decay rates. This combination can result 

in a pre-pad-separation twang in vehicle load indicators near 

umbilical separation locations. These phenomena manifest as 

a high frequency “buzz” in some load indicators to significantly 

altered response time-histories in others. 

Lift-off Modeling & Simulation of T-0 Umbilicals Using 

a Flexible Multibody Dynamic Model Framework

The SLS lift-off CLA is a nonlinear transient 

dynamic event. For the lift-off CLA to be valid, 

it must include the major system nonlinearities 

and their impact on dynamic response. This innovative technique includes Deformed Geometry Synthesis (DGS) for the replications of all 

physical stacking steps, cryogenic shrinkage, 

and associated geometric nonlinearities (e.g., 

aft strut rotations) for accurate preloads. The 

DGS algorithm locks in preloads due to geometry (e.g., stacking and cryogenic shrinkage) 

misalignments at component interfaces. This 

provides the preload contribution to the lift-off 

pad separation twang (i.e., includes the release of strain energy due to gravity effects). 

The nonlinear simulations utilize a flexible multibody framework with key benefits including 

the ability for the solver algorithms to handle 

nonlinearities at the substructure level without 

affecting the overall system computational performance. As such, the nonlinear lift-off transient CLA capability solves at fast computation 

speeds that are congruent with sensitivity and 

other risk reduction studies.

For vehicle-pad separation, simulations utilize an enhanced 

version of the Henkel-Mar (HM) pad separation nonlinear algorithm. The enhancement involves an iteration loop that discerns 

which separating interface takes precedence in the event when 

two or more interfaces separate at the same time. This results 

in a more realistic release of strain energy, resulting dynamics, 

and separation twang. A contact/recontact nonlinear algorithm 

tracks potential re-contact between all separating interfaces, 

e.g., booster aft skirt lateral rebound due to “squat” loads and extensible-post separation/recontact with the mobile launcher. The 

VSS model is a nonlinear substructure including the radial and 

tangential hydraulic struts with parameters defined from test 

data. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is utilized to solve for the 

VSS nonlinear behavior. The separation simulation of the VSS 

from the CS uses a timed-release algorithm. The Tail Service 

Mast Umbilical (TSMU) (liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen), CS 

Intertank Umbilical (CSITU), and CS Forward Skirt Umbilical 

(CSFSU) secondary disconnects were included in the lift-off 

nonlinear simulations. Umbilical secondary disconnect scenarios for the two TSMUs, CSITU, and CSFSU utilize the HM 

algorithm inclusive of contact/recontact. This flexible multibody 

framework provides for exceptionally fast nonlinear simulation 

times and flexibility in adding components and nonlinearities 

without having to reformulate the entire system. For more information, contact Joel Sills, joel.w.sills@nasa.gov.

Figure 1

Mobile launcher layout showing umbilicals.

SLS

Umbilical/Access Arm

Configuration

Core Stage Forward

Skirt Umbilical (CSFSU)

Vehicle Stabilizer System (VSS)

Tail Service Mast Umbilical

(TSMU) - 2 Places

Core Stage Inter-Tank 

Umbilical (CSITU)

Crew Access Arm (CAA)

Orion Service Module 

Umbilical (OSMU)

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion 

Stage Umbilical (ICPSU)

Vehicle Support Post (VSP) -

8 Places

Aft Skirt Purge Umbilical

2 Places

Aft Skirt Electrical 

Umbilical - 2 Places Vehicle Support Post - 2 Places

1. Anshicks, R. D. (1970), Interactions with Launch 

Stand and Umbilicals, NASA-SP-0861, LaRC.

28 Innovative Techniques
A new material analysis technique was developed at the MSFC 

Materials & Processes Lab to efficiently generate correlation 

curves between indentation hardness measurements and 

localized material strain.

The technique employs digital image correlation (DIC) to map 

local plastic strain development in a tensile test specimen under stress. The test specimen includes a constant radius gage 

section designed to establish a plastic strain gradient along the 

longitudinal axis of the test specimen. The hourglass-shaped 

test specimens are then loaded to a desired stress level using 

standard tensile testing procedures while monitoring the specimen surface with DIC.

Post-test, the specimens are longitudinally sectioned, and a 

trace of micro-hardness indentation measurements are obtained 

along the cross-section. With careful attention to specimen 

orientation and relationships between spatial reference features 

on the test specimen, a corresponding local strain value can 

be determined for each microhardness measurement from the 

DIC data obtained during the initial test. When performed using 

thin sheet materials, the through-thickness strain variations 

are minimal, which allows for direct correlation of the DIC 

information with microhardness measurements.

Traditional methods for correlating hardness and material strain 

involve testing many specimens, one for each plastic strain value 

of interest. By taking advantage of DIC techniques and automated 

hardness measurement, the developed technique requires only 

one test specimen for the generation of the entire correlation 

curve, from no plastic strain up to material failure. The method is 

particularly suited to evaluating thin sheet materials, but could be 

extended to thicker sections with appropriate adaptations.

The resulting strain-hardness correlation curve is a tool to inform 

other material evaluations by providing a calibration between 

hardness and the plastic strain developed in the material. The 

technique is particularly suited to evaluations where specimen 

geometry or material availability preclude full-size mechanical 

test specimens; for example, a hardness correlation curve can 

be produced to aid in the evaluation of a complex additively 

manufactured part by using a bespoke test specimen produced 

alongside the part. Other example applications would include 

investigations on the effect of bending operations on sheet 

metal, metallurgical failure analyses of components, or surveys 

of plastic strain effects due to thermal processing.

For more information, contact William Tilson, william.g.tilson@

nasa.gov or Douglas Wells, douglas.n.wells@nasa.gov.

Strain-Hardness Correlation Testing Technique

 Innovative Techniques 29

Local Strain 

Hardness

(d) 

(b) 

(a) Overlay of DIC data on test specimen.

(b) Spatial relationship between exported DIC data and hardness trace.

(c) Representative hardness indentations.

(d) Strain-to-hardness correlation curve.

(a)

(c) 
30 Innovative Techniques

Magnetically

Levitated

Space 

Mechanisms

Space mechanisms can be loosely defined 

as any mechanical component or assembly 

that moves and operates in a space environment. 

As such, space mechanisms include such mechanical systems 

as deployable solar arrays, linear actuators, rotary actuators, 

motors, and gear systems. One of the basic components of many 

space mechanisms are bearings, and because bearings inherently experience wear over time, rotating space mechanisms 

have a finite life expectancy. In addition, some space mechanisms have suffered from premature wear, which can jeopardize 

the success of a mission. For these reasons, there is always a 

search for longer-life bearing solutions for space mechanisms.

Rolling element bearings have a long space mechanism heritage and are often the first choice in mechanism design. However, for some applications that demand extremely long life or 

operation where contamination from lubricants (oil and grease) 

are a concern, magnetic bearings are a potential solution. Magnetic bearings are a relatively recent development that is making significant inroads in large terrestrial machine applications 

like pipeline pumps and compressors. A few magnetic bearing reaction wheels have been flown, but the technology has 

not yet gained wide-spread adoption in space, primarily due 

to concerns regarding cost, mass and reliability. However, in 

response to various rolling element bearing failures in space 

mechanisms, the NESC Mechanical Systems Technical Discipline Team has supported the concept of developing magnetic 

bearing technology for space mechanisms beginning in 2012. 

The NESC sponsored an in-depth study of the state of the art 

in magnetic and other bearing technologies to identify the key 

pros and cons of each technology. A near-term potential application considered was the ammonia cooling pump on the International Space Station (ISS), which had suffered failure due to 

wear of its carbon bushings. The NESC study identified the areas where an investment in magnetic bearing technology would 

be needed to address shortcomings for space mechanisms and 

concluded that there are no significant technical hurdles that 

could not be overcome. The review of bearing technologies was 

eventually published as a NASA TM1

.

 

The NESC-sponsored study inspired a recent demonstration 

application of magnetic bearings, which is expected to set precedent for future space applications of the technology. A magnetic bearing air blower has been designed, built, tested, and in 

August 2020 was delivered to NASA MSFC for use in the next 

generation Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) aboard 

the ISS. The current CDRA blower utilizes foil air bearings. 

Magnetic bearings offer improved resistance to debris in the air 

stream and the ability to endure vacuum operation can occur 

during operational anomalies. To accomplish this ISS-funded 

demonstration project, in 2017, NASA issued a Request For 

Information seeking design concepts for a CDRA blower. Magnetic levitation was submitted by industry as a potential design 

that could meet all of the system requirements. A procurement 

phase for the magnetic bearing blowers was initiated in early 

2018. The magnetic bearing blower2 is now undergoing system-level ground testing and is scheduled to be used as the 

heart of the 4-Bed Molecular Sieve CDRA system. Successful 

launch and operation on orbit stands to open the door to many 

future applications of magnetic bearing space mechanisms in 

future NASA missions. This work was performed at GRC.

For more information, contact: 

Samuel A. Howard, Ph.D. howard@nasa.gov

Christopher DellaCorte, Ph.D. christopher.dellacorte@nasa.gov

Michael J. Dube, Ph.D. michael.j.dube@nasa.gov

Larry Hawkins, Calnetix Technologies larry@calnetix.com

References

1. Howard, S.A., DellaCorte, C., and Dube, M.J., “Magnetic Levitation for 

Long-Life Space Mechanisms: Technology Assessment and Remaining Challenges,” NASA/TM-2019-220052.

2. Hawkins, L., Filatov, A., Khatri, R., DellaCorte, C., Howard, A., “Design 

Of A Compact Magnetically Levitated Blower For Space Applications,” 

ASME Turbo Expo, Paper GT2020-15090, Sept. 2020, London (Virtual).
 Discipline Focus 31

Microthrusters as a Potential 

Solution for Accomplishing 

Pointing Stability for Large 

Space Telescopes

Cornelius J. Dennehy

NASA Technical Fellow

for GNC

NASA is planning missions that will operate high-performance optical payloads with highly vibration-sensitive scientific instruments for science observations. Stringent pointing

stability requirements to mitigate jitter and microvibration are

key for such large space telescope missions of the future.

Managing jitter is essential to obtain 

distortion-free images of planetary 

bodies on exo-planet coronagraph

missions. Traditionally these space

observatories have relied upon reaction wheels to provide the attitude-control torques needed for stabilization and pointing. For example,

the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)

uses four reaction wheels as part of 

its pointing control system. However, the reaction wheels themselves 

are typically the largest pointing disturbance source on the spacecraft, 

primarily due to static and dynamic 

mass imbalances in the flywheel as

well as wheel-bearing mechanical 

noise. Therefore satisfying stringent

jitter requirements for missions, in

this class requires methods to limit

or isolate vibrations generated by 

the wheels. On most high-performance observatory missions GNC

engineers typically invest significant

time and resources to conduct special reaction wheel disturbance characterization tests, exquisite wheel balancing, and

the design and development of wheel-disturbance mechanical isolation devices. 

A recent NESC assessment investigated the feasibility of using microthrusters as an alternative or supplement to reaction wheels for providing attitude control during periods of 

scientific data collection requiring precision pointing. Microthrusters, or micronewton thrusters, are thrusters capable of 

producing forces in the micronewton range. Microthrusters

have been developed by NASA as part of a drag-free control 

system for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)

mission. Microthrusters come in different forms, using different types of propellant. The NESC assessment focused on

cold-gas microthrusters that use gaseous nitrogen and on 

colloidal microthrusters, a type of electrospray thruster that 

applies a high electric potential difference to charged liquid

at the end of a hollow needle in such a way that a stream 

of tiny, charged droplets is emitted generating thrust. Both

cold-gas and colloidal microthrusters were flown on the NASA ST7/ESA

LISA Pathfinder technology demonstration mission.

The assessment team recognized 

that the need for the observatory to 

perform large angle slew maneuvers 

would exceed the control authority

of microthrusters, necessitating the 

use of either wheels or traditional reaction control system (RCS) thrusters

(using hydrazine or bipropellants) for

large slews. The need for different

control actuators for large slews and 

fine-pointing leads to different mission operational scenarios studied by 

the team. One scenario used reaction

wheels for performing large slews, 

which are then spun down to zero 

speed during science observations, 

with microthrusters used as the sole 

actuator for fine pointing. In this scenario, any need to mechanically isolate the reaction wheels is eliminated because the wheels are 

shut down during fine pointing. A second scenario employed

RCS thrusters for large slews, with microthrusters used as 

the sole actuator for fine pointing. Both the cold gas and colloid microthrusters with their nanonewton resolution provide 

an appropriate level of attitude control torque to maintain the

observatory’s fine pointing without introducing undesirable

jitter. The assessment results indicated the microthrusters

could provide an order of magnitude performance improvement relative to HST. The general conclusion is that microthrusters have potential for reducing the cost and technical 

risks of achieving demanding pointing stability performance 

on observatory-class missions. For more information, contact Cornelius J. Dennehy, cornelius.j.dennehy@nasa.gov or 

Aron Wolf, aron.a.wolf@jpl.nasa.gov.

NASA ST7/ESA 

LISA Pathfinder
One goal of the recent NESC assessment, Transient Combustion 

Modeling for Hypergolic Engines, was to identify and characterize the early reactions that occur between monomethylhydrazine 

(MMH) fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) oxidizer in the liquid 

and gas phases to improve modeling for liquid-fueled space propulsion system hypergolic propellant engines. Drs. Tim Pourpoint 

and Hilkka Kenttämaa of Purdue University were asked to perform experiments to support the effort. 

Identification of Reaction Products

Identifying the first products formed upon interactions of NTO 

and MMH requires an analytical technique capable of quickly and 

unambiguously providing elemental composition and structural 

information for the products. A combination of low- and high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry was chosen for this task. This 

technique requires the products to be converted into gas-phase 

ions before analysis. 

The initial products formed upon liquid- and gas-phase hypergolic reactions may react immediately with other liquids or gases 

that form in the mixture. Because the reactions cannot be halted 

to collect the first species generated, evaporation and ionization 

(if necessary) must occur at the moment the products form to ensure that the correct species are being analyzed. Based on this 

condition, the team selected laser desorption/ionization (LDI) as 

the most promising technique due to its speed. The current state 

of laser technology enables laser pulse lengths on the order of 

nanoseconds, much shorter than the expected time scale of the 

reactions of interest.

LDI has been successfully used by researchers with a 355 

nm laser to evaporate and ionize solid aromatic compounds1

, 

proteins2,3, and polymers4

. Since MMH and NTO are relatively small molecules, have different structures compared to the 

types of samples discussed in the literature, and have largely 

unknown early reaction products, the energy of the photons and 

the laser power (density of photons) required for LDI of their 

products were unknown.

Purdue Test Facility

To conduct the investigation of the liquid phase and early gas 

phase reactions of MMH with NTO, the Purdue team designed 

an apparatus that brought approximately 3 μl drops of MMH and 

NTO into contact with each other in a highly repeatable manner, synchronized with the LDI technique, and under controlled 

conditions. The small liquid volumes made the experiment easier 

to control and improved safety. Figure 1 shows the final dropon-drop experimental apparatus installed in a mobile fume hood. 

The NTO drop was placed into the bottom tube as opposed to 

MMH due to its low surface tension. The MMH drop was then 

moved down to touch the NTO drop by using an actuator with a 

maximum actuation speed of 14 inch/second and spatial resolution of 1 μm. This high actuator speed was chosen to minimize 

interactions between NTO and MMH vapors before the drops 

contacted one another.

MMH/NTO Drop-on-Drop Testing

Prior to each experiment, the laser was allowed to warm up while 

the laser beam was blocked from entering the test area by a 

beam shutter. With the laser ready, the MMH drop was brought 

down and into contact with the NTO drop. Simultaneously, the 

data acquisition system sent a signal to the mass spectrometer to begin data acquisition. Shortly after triggering the mass 

spectrometer, the system sent a signal to open the beam shutter and allow a single laser pulse to pass next to the reaction 

just as the mass spectrometer began detecting ions. Figure 2 

shows a still photo of the laser pulse hitting the area between 

the touching droplets and the mass spectrometer inlet during a 

test sequence. Evidence of the laser pulse is clearly visible because of the ionized gases created as the laser beam passes 

through the area. The orange coloration was caused by the laser 

filter used to protect the camera. Figure 3 shows a high-resolution mass spectrum measured for the MMH/NTO liquid reaction 

products showing the measured elemental compositions of the 

ions and proposed structures for some of the ions. Additional results demonstrated that the liquid-phase reactions of MMH and 

NTO readily produce large amounts of ions in the absence of 

any ionization method (i.e., LDI), which can be detected by the 

mass spectrometer. Aside from the ionic compounds produced, 

the neutral intermediates cannot be detected without LDI, which 

will be part of future experimentation.

Interestingly, while many positively charged ions were observed, 

only a few negatively charged ions, the most abundant corresponding to nitrate, were detected. These conclusions are in 

agreement with the nature of the highly energetic hypergolic reactions, as ions are much more reactive than neutral molecules 

in the gas phase. The results of the experiments conducted by 

the NESC assessment team will augment modeling capabilities 

with the objective of improving combustion instability predictions 

for existing and future hypergolic propellant engines. For more information, contact Dr. Daniel J. Dorney, daniel.j.dorney@nasa.gov.

References:

1. Dotter, R. N.; Smith, C. H.; Young, M. K.; Kelly, P. B.; Jones, 

A. D.; McCauley, E. M.; Chang, D. P. Y. Laser Desorption/

Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry of Nitrated Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Anal. Chem. 1996, 68 (14), 2319–2324. 

https://doi.org/10.1021/ac951132r

2. Kawasaki, H.; Akira, T.; Watanabe, T.; Nozaki, K.; Yonezawa, T.; 

Arakawa, R. Sulfonate Group-Modified FePtCu Nanoparticles as a 

Selective Probe for LDI-MS Analysis of Oligopeptides from a Peptide 

Mixture and Human Serum Proteins. Anal Bioanal Chem 2009, 395 (5), 

1423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-009-3122-0

3. Karas, M.; Ingendoh, A.; Bahr, U.; Hillenkamp, F. Ultraviolet–Laser 

Desorption/Ionization Mass Spectrometry of Femtomolar Amounts of 

Large Proteins. Biomedical & Environmental Mass Spectrometry 1989, 

18 (9), 841–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/bms.1200180931

4. Gołda-Cępa, M.; Aminlashgari, N.; Hakkarainen, M.; Engvall, K.; 

Kotarba, A. LDI-MS Examination of Oxygen Plasma Modified Polymer 

for Designing Tailored Implant Biointerfaces. RSC Adv. 2014, 4 (50), 

26240–26243. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA02656J

Transient Combustion Modeling

for Hypergolic Engines

Dr. Daniel J. Dorney

NASA Technical Fellow

for Propulsion

32 Discipline Focus
Left: FIGURE 1

MMH/NTO drop-on-drop experimental 

configuration.

Above: FIGURE 2

Laser pulse hitting the MMH/NTO droplets.

Below: FIGURE 3

Example high-resolution mass spectrum 

collected during MMH/NTO drop-on-drop 

test. Ions boxed in red were subjected to 

Collision-Activated Dissociation in tandem 

mass spectrometry experiments to obtain 

structural information.

Ionization from laser pulse

 Discipline Focus 33
Systems Engineers Bring an

Integrated Perspective to NASA Missions

Engineers from every technical discipline provide the critical 

subsystems necessary for NASA’s spaceflight missions. But

ensuring these integrated subsystems will operate seamlessly at lift-off and successfully transport their payloads to

their destinations requires the input of another technical discipline–systems engineering.

“The systems engineer is the jack-of-all-trades,” said Mr.

Jon Holladay, NASA Technical Fellow for Systems Engineering (SE). He leads the 50-member SE Technical Discipline

Team (TDT), which has found itself in high demand as NASA’s

timeline for executing multiple, complex missions reaches

an apex this decade. “To me, this is a revolutionary time at

NASA,” Holladay said, ticking off a long list of anticipated

near-term launches including the James Webb Space Telescope, Artemis I, the Habitation and Logistics Outpost, and 

Human Lander System.

“The ability to effectively integrate how we do what we do,

in perhaps one of the most critical and complex arenas, is

what systems engineering brings to the table,” he said. Increasing complexity and requirements for more autonomous

operations and seamless data flow come with each new mission, all of which are maturing at speeds much faster than 

the decades-long development of earlier NASA programs 

like Apollo, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station 

(ISS). “We have to do more, move faster, and make decisions

more quickly, and that requires understanding the integrated

perspective of what those decisions mean.” 

Mr. Holladay, his TDT Deputy Mr. Robert Beil, and TDT members have worked to establish the SE discipline as a vital 

Agency resource and communicate the importance of balancing technical issues with integration. The TDT’s statistics,

data mining, systems analysis, and SE subject matter experts serve on standing review boards, mishap investigation 

teams, integrated hazard reviews, and technical standards 

evaluations. Pulling in subject matter experts from other

technical disciplines, they also form assessment teams to 

help programs find the best strategies for integration and uncover the errors that, in complex systems, often trace back

to where interfaces occur.

In 2020, the SE TDT led or participated in a range of activities 

that reveal the increasing importance of the integration aspect of systems engineering to NASA missions. They recently led a comprehensive review of SE, software, and systems 

integration lessons learned, the results from which are being 

leveraged for Artemis I and commercial flights to ISS. They

are currently working with the thermal, power, and avionics 

disciplines on extravehicular activity power systems for ISS

and lunar systems, opening the door to cross-program integration opportunities by exploring a common system architecture that could be used across multiple missions. And

the TDT statistical team helped analyze whether a test program for a critical piece of propulsion hardware was robust 

enough to ensure reliability, which is growing in importance 

as NASA integrates with commercial partners striving for increased production rates and quick mission turn arounds. 

The TDT also helped identify critical failure modes of ventilators for COVID-19 patients and consultation on verification

and test methodology for non-NASA commercial vehicles.

In the coming decade, the SE TDT will continue integrating the 

pieces of the increasingly complex systems required to accomplish NASA’s future missions, leveraging what they learn 

from each assessment, conducting outreach through workshops and their community of practice, and taking advantage 

of digital platforms like model-based systems engineering. 

“Often, if you are embedded in one project or program, you 

don’t always see that big picture,” Mr. Holladay said, noting

the challenge for the SE TDT will be to bring those lessons 

learned and the big picture, integration perspective to every 

NASA mission. For more information, contact Jon B. Holladay, 

jon.holladay@nasa.gov.

Jon B. Holladay

NASA Technical Fellow

for Systems Engineering

34 Discipline Focus
Defining Human Error

Analysis for Human Rating

of Crewed Spacecraft

NASA’s Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems (NPR 

8705.2C) calls for Program Managers to conduct a human 

error analysis (HEA) during system development. The analysis 

should cover all mission phases, including ground processing, 

launch preparation, flight, and recovery/disposal operations. The 

purpose is to identify human errors that could lead to catastrophic 

outcomes and apply this information to identify areas for design 

changes. The requirement makes it clear that HEA is a qualitative 

analysis that complements probabilistic hazard assessments. The 

requirement for HEA applies to systems developed by NASA, but 

depending upon agreements, HEA may also be applied to other 

crewed space systems. 

For as long as the NASA HEA requirement has been in force, there 

has been uncertainty about exactly what is a human error analysis, 

and how should one be done. In 2018, after the NESC received a 

request for guidance on this issue, Dr. John O’Hara (Brookhaven 

National Lab) and Dr. Alan Hobbs (San Jose State University) were 

tasked with answering these questions. The resulting position 

paper Guidance for Human Error Analysis was approved by the 

NESC Review Board in November 2019 and is available as NASA/

TM-2020-5001486.

Their resulting position paper presents methods that can be used 

to meet the intent of NPR 8705.2C, but does not rule out the use 

of alternative approaches. The document covers the essential elements of human error analysis including establishing the HEA 

team; screening-in tasks for analysis; identifying potential catastrophic errors for each analyzed task; error management strategies; and documenting the analysis. 

Error analysis is about identifying and mitigating problems at a 

system level, and not about finding fault with individuals. In many 

cases, errors occur in the context of error-producing conditions in 

hardware, software, or procedures. If we can influence the design 

to eliminate these conditions, we can reduce the likelihood of human error, while retaining the positive contribution that humans 

make to system operations.

The position paper distinguishes error-producing conditions (EPC) 

from error traps. An EPC is a general condition (such as time pressure or fatigue) that can increase the likelihood of error across a 

range of tasks. An error trap is a particular set of circumstances 

that can provoke a specific error, e.g., adjacent items of hardware 

with compatible connectors that enable a cross-connection error. 

Many EPCs can never be eliminated entirely. However, in most cases, error traps can be designed out of the system. The elimination 

of error traps is one of the most valuable outcomes of HEA. For 

more information, contact Dr. Cynthia H. Null, cynthia.h.null@nasa.

gov or Dr. Alan Hobbs, alan.hobbs@nasa.gov.

General HEA Principles

The goal of HEA is 

to enhance system 

reliability and safety.

HEA enhances system reliability 

and safety by identifying where 

significant human errors could occur,

the conditions that could provoke 

these errors (including error traps), 

and means to mitigate them.

HEA is an

iterative process.

Analysis of potential human errors 

should occur throughout all phases 

of the design process. 

HEA is directed at

the entire system,

not people alone.

HEA identifies problems with the total

system, including hardware, software, 

equipment, facilities, processes, and 

procedures. HEA is not about finding

fault with people or attributing blame.

HEA must consider 

tasks in context. 

Tasks are not performed in 

isolation, but occur in the context 

of a workflow. Potential interactions

between tasks must be considered.

HEA should be 

integrated with other 

analyses.

HEA should use information from 

other sources such as hazard and 

task analyses and provide input to 

other products such as risk analyses.

HEA benefits

from independent 

perspectives. 

HEA should provide a 

perspective that is independent 

from the design team.

HEA should be 

performed by a

multidisciplinary 

team.

It is best performed by a team that 

includes personnel trained in HEA, as 

well as subject matter experts (SMEs) 

and design engineers familiar with 

the systems being evaluated.

HEA requires 

imagination.

HEA requires careful thought and 

imagination to identify vulnerabilities 

where human performance could 

pose a threat to the mission. It should 

not be a “box checking” exercise.

HEA requires

input from

operational 

personnel.

The analysis should include input 

from personnel who perform the 

tasks in question. Even when a task 

is new, or associated with a new 

system design, input from personnel 

who have performed similar tasks 

can provide valuable insights.

There is no single 

correct approach

to HEA.

HEA can use a variety of methods, 

including evaluations by SMEs, the 

application of engineering judgment, 

task analysis, and formal analyses 

such as human reliability analysis.

HEA must consider 

work as actually 

performed.

HEA must consider the full range of 

possible human interactions with 

systems, including interactions not 

envisioned by designers or covered 

by formal procedures. 

HEA cannot be 

applied in detail to 

every task. 

Mission success relies on thousands 

of human tasks performed by operational personnel on the ground and 

in flight. It is impossible to analyze

all of them. Screening is necessary 

to identify those which, if performed 

incorrectly, would pose the greatest 

risk to mission success and safety.

 Discipline Focus 35

Dr. Cynthia H. Null

NASA Technical Fellow

for Human Factors
Explore all NESC Knowledge Products online at NESC.NASA.GOV.

The NESC is engaged in activities 

to identify, retain, and share 

critical knowledge in order to 

meet our future challenges. To 

disseminate that knowledge to 

engineers - within NASA, industry, 

and academia - the NESC develops 

a wide variety of knowledge 

products that can be readily 

accessed including technical 

assessment reports, technical 

bulletins, video libraries, and more.

The detailed engineering and 

analyses generated from each 

assessment are captured in 

comprehensive engineering 

reports and converted to NASA 

Technical Memorandums (TM) 

for permanent archive and 

access. For information on NESC 

reports, visit ntrs.nasa.gov and

ntrsreg.nasa.gov.

Annual summary of NESC 

technical activities

including lessons learned, 

technical bulletins, innovative 

techniques, discipline features, 

journal articles, and conference 

publications. To view NESC 

Technical Updates, visit 

nasa.gov/nesc/technicalupdates.

NESC Knowledge 

Products:

Capturing and Preserving Critical 

Knowledge for the Future

NESC Knowledge Products

Engineering Reports

An Agency-level lessons 

learned database called the 

Lessons Learned Information 

System (LLIS) is used to capture 

important and broadly applicable 

lessons learned. NESC and 

Agency lessons learned can be 

found at llis.nasa.gov and 

nen.nasa.gov.

Lessons Learned

Solutions developed from NESC 

assessments and highlighted 

annually in the Technical Update 

and at nasa.gov/offices/nesc/

innovativetechniques.html

Innovative 

Techniques Written by members of the NESC 

and NESC Technical Discipline 

Teams to capture and convey 

new knowledge learned on NESC 

assessments. A list of NESC 

technical papers and conference 

proceedings is available at 

nasa.gov/nesc/technicalpapers.

Technical Papers

Discipline Focus articles highlight 

important information, gleaned 

from NESC assessments, which 

may benefit a wider audience. A 

list of overarching NESC featured 

articles is available at nasa.gov/

nesc/features.

Discipline Focus

Articles

Technical Updates

Critical knowledge captured from 

NESC assessments in the form 

of new engineering information 

or best practices in a one-page 

format. To view NESC Technical 

Bulletins, visit nesc.nasa.gov/

nesc/technicalbulletins. 

The NESC Academy presents 

live and on-demand content 

from researchers, engineers, 

and field experts in 20 technical 

disciplines. The Academy hosts 

over 790 videos and webcasts 

containing interviews, tutorials, 

lectures, and lessons learned in 

an engaging format that features 

side-by-side video and slides, 

powerful search capabilities, 

downloadable lesson materials, 

and more. These lessons, many 

of which are publicly available, 

can be viewed at nescacademy.

nasa.gov, with content exclusive 

to NASA employees available 

upon sign-in.

Subscribe to our mailing list 

to ensure you never miss an 

opportunity to learn from NASA 

engineers when upcoming 

webcasts or new lessons are 

available.

Technical Bulletins NESC Academy

• Subject-Matter Experts

• Live Webcasts with Q&A

• Searchable Content

• Simultaneous Video & Slides

• Downloadable Lesson 

 Materials

• Notifications for Live 

 Webcasts & New Content

A C A D E M Y

N E S C

NASA Engineering and Safety Center

NESC Academy

NASA Engineering & Safety Center

Engineering 

Reports

Technical

Bulletins

Technical

Papers

Lessons

Learned

NESC

ASSESSMENTS

&

SUPPORT

ACTIVITIES

Innovative

Techniques

Technical

Updates
A forum for the NASA community to gain critical knowledge to aid

professional development and support the NASA mission.

Beginning in 2007, the NESC Academy was formed to capture and disseminate knowledge from NASA discipline experts to the 

engineering community. The NESC Academy enables effective knowledge capture and transfer, ensuring technical information 

remains viable and accessible. It provides a forum for the NASA community to gain critical knowledge to aid professional development 

and support the NASA mission. Researchers, engineers, and field experts in 20 technical disciplines present live and on-demand 

content relevant to the design, development, test, and operation of NASA programs and projects. The Academy hosts more than 

790+ videos and webcasts containing interviews, tutorials, lectures, and lessons learned. Viewers learn from subject matter experts 

in an engaging format that uses a self-paced structure based on a state-of-the-art video player for education that includes side-byside video and slides, powerful search capabilities, downloadable course materials, and more. The platform enables dual video 

streams for content across desktop and mobile devices.

NESC Academy Contact:

LARC-DL-Production-NESC-Academy@mail.nasa.gov

Program Manager | daniel.l.hoffpauir@nasa.gov

• 24 VIDEOS PUBLISHED FY20

• 20 LIVE WEBCASTS FY20

• 790+ TOTAL VIDEOS 

• 165,294 TOTAL VIEWS

A C A D E M Y

N E S C

FY20 Most Viewed Videos

by Discipline

Aerosciences

Avionics

Electrical Power

Environmental 

Control & Life Support

Flight Mechanics

GNC

Human Factors

Loads & Dynamics

Materials

Mechanical Systems

NDE

Passive Thermal

Propulsion

Sensors & 

Instrumentation

Software

Space Environments

Structures

Systems Engineering

Aerodynamic Performance Testing

Fundamentals of Electromagnetic Compatibility, 

Part 2 - Building Blocks 

High Voltage Engineering Techniques for 

Space Applications: Part 1

Space Radiation Environments

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

Flight Vehicle Simulations

Robust Stability: From Disk Margins

to Neural Network Analysis

Futuristic Habitat Concepts to Expand Human 

Capability in Space

Shock & Vibration: 01. Natural Frequencies, Part 1

Shape Memory Alloys - Not Your Ordinary Metal

Overview of Fastener Requirements in the 

New NASA-STD-5020

Materials Durability (Reliability of NDE) Part 1 of 3

Short Course on Lithium-ion Batteries:

Fundamental Concepts, Heating Mechanisms, 

and Simulation Techniques

Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program 

Training Course 01: Course Introduction

Lidar for NASA Applications

Introduction to Software Engineering 13: 

Configuration Management

(MOWG) NASA Robotic CARA Probability of Collision

Structural Analysis Part 1

Model-Centric Engineering, Part 1: Intro to 

Model-Based Systems Engineering

 NESC Knowledge Products 37

Top 10 Most Viewed Videos

1. Model-Centric Engineering, Part 1: 

Introduction to Model-Based Systems Engineering

2. Short Course on Lithium-ion Batteries: 

Fundamental Concepts, Heating Mechanisms

and Simulation Techniques

3. Shock & Vibration: 01. Natural Frequencies, Part 1

4. Common Thermal Modeling Mistakes, Part 1

5. Fundamentals of Aircraft Engine Control

6. Rationale for Selected MIL-STD-1540E

Thermal Test Requirements

7. An Overview of Fastener Requirements in

the New NASA-STD-5020

8. Model-Centric Engineering, Part 2:

Introduction to System Modeling

9. Short Course on Lithium-ion Batteries: Fundamental 

Concepts, Battery Safety, and Modeling Techniques

10. Fundamentals of Launch Vehicle

Flight Control System Design

nescacademy.nasa.gov
Technical Bulletin No. 20-02

Effective and Environmentally 

Compliant Cleaner - Solstice 

Performance Fluid

Historically, NASA has used Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225 

(HCFC-225 or AK-225) solvent to clean and verify propulsion 

systems that use liquid and gaseous oxygen, but when the 

EPA implemented restrictions regarding its use, NASA began 

efforts to find an acceptable replacement. This Technical Bulletin highlights the cleaning capabilities and compatibility of alternative fluids, Honeywell’s Solstice® Performance Fluid (PF), 

PF-high purity (HP), and PF-HP spray, that may be used in a 

variety of cleaning applications. The bulletin is provided by Mr. 

Steven Gentz, NESC Chief Engineer at Marshall Space Flight 

Center, who through NESC assessments, supported the 

Agency’s initiative to identify and test alternatives to AK-225.

Technical Bulletin No. 20-01

Latching Safety Critical Signals

in Pyrotechnic Circuits

When a shock test of safety-critical pyrotechnic circuits resulted in an inadvertent firing, it revealed a sensitivity to electrical noise in the latching circuits, which store the state-ofcontrol signals in pyrotechnic control circuitry. This technical 

bulletin, developed by Dr. Robert Hodson, NASA Technical 

Fellow for Avionics, recommends enhancements to recent 

designs of these circuits that would reduce this sensitivity and 

the susceptibility of the circuit to unintentional firing. These 

best practices offer simple improvements such as qualifying 

data signals and adding filters to the design of these critical 

circuits that are vital to the safe operation of spacecraft.

A companion lesson learned, LL 27003,

is available at llis.nasa.gov.

NESC Technical 

Bulletins

Critical knowledge captured from NESC assessments 

in the form of new engineering information or best 

practices in a one-page format.

38 NESC Technical Bulletins
Technical Bulletin No. 20-03

Navigation Filter Design

Best Practices

This Technical Bulletin introduces a new handbook that aggregates NASA’s extensive knowledge base on navigation 

estimation systems and filters, which are used extensively 

throughout the Agency on both crewed and uncrewed missions. Targeted to mission designers, the handbook provides a comprehensive reference to NASA’s best practices 

for navigation filter designs, which have safely and reliably 

supported missions since the Gemini/Apollo era. The handbook’s development was, in part, an outgrowth of an NESC 

assessment of best practices for rendezvous navigation filter 

design, led by the NASA Technical Fellow for Guidance, Navigation, and Control, Mr. Neil Dennehy.

Technical Bulletin No. 20-04

Alternative O-Rings for 

Hypergolic Propellant Systems

Parker-Hannifin has stopped production of O-rings using the 

material E0515. NASA programs such as the Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle, the Commercial Crew Program, Mars 2020, 

the Europa Clipper, and the International Space Station have 

used O-rings made of this material to seal high pressure lines 

that contain liquid engine propellants and gases. As NASA reserves of the E0515 O-rings will soon be depleted, Dr. Daniel 

Dorney, NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion, led an NESC 

assessment team that tested potential replacement candidates. This Technical Bulletin provides the results of that 

testing as well as recommendations for replacement O-rings 

that are compatible with hypergolic propellant applications.

 NESC Technical Bulletins 39

View all NESC Technical 

Bulletins from 2007 to 2020 

at nesc.nasa.gov.
NESC Technical 

Bulletins

Critical knowledge captured from NESC assessments 

in the form of new engineering information or best 

practices in a one-page format.

Technical Bulletin No. 20-06

Material Compatibility 

Assessment of Spacecraft 

Oxidizer Systems

After recognition that an ignition vulnerability existed between certain materials and oxidizers used in spacecraft 

propulsion, the NESC researched ignition mechanisms to 

better understand the potential risk to NASA and industry. 

An assessment focused on the flammability/ignition behavior of titanium and oxidizers such as nitrogen tetroxide, but 

revealed that other metals may also be susceptible. While 

the oxidizer compatibility assessment process is ongoing, 

this technical bulletin discusses the immediate steps NASA 

is taking to mitigate this risk until these ignition mechanisms 

are fully understood and thresholds and operating envelopes 

can be determined.

Technical Bulletin No. 20-05

Determination of Autogenous 

Ignition Temperature of 

Isopropyl Alcohol and Ethanol

Following a liquid rocket engine shutdown investigation, 

NASA was requested to provide any available data on the 

autoignition temperature (AIT) of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) 

in a pressurized, gaseous oxygen environment. IPA is 

commonly used as a solvent or cleaner in launch vehicle and 

spacecraft propulsion systems. When the data were found 

to be focused primarily on air and for much lower pressures 

than needed, the NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion, Dr. 

Daniel Dorney, led an NESC assessment to determine the 

AIT of IPA, as well as ethanol, in the required conditions. 

The new data were provided to interested programs and 

projects across NASA and industry. This Technical Bulletin 

summarizes those findings.

40 NESC Technical Bulletins
Technical Bulletin No. 20-07

Evaluating and Mitigating 

Liner Strain Spikes in COPVs

Based on NESC analysis of cracks and leaks that occurred in 

flight Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPV), a 

failure mode due to liner strain spikes was observed through 

measurement and predicted by analysis. The failure mode 

may be present in COPVs used on NASA programs and by 

the aerospace industry. This technical bulletin was developed to alert manufacturers and the user community to this 

failure mode and contains approaches to evaluate COPVs 

for susceptibility to this failure mode. 

Technical Bulletin No. 20-08

Assessment of KetazineDerived High Purity Hydrazine 

for Spacecraft Propellant 

Systems

Hydrazine and its derivatives have dominated the class 

of hypergolic liquid propellants for bipropellant propulsion 

systems and is used as a monopropellant in auxiliary power units and thrusters. With continued use of hydrazine in 

current and future spacecraft and payloads, it is necessary 

to understand the historical and current states of synthesis 

for the commodity and possible purity implications that may 

arise from changes in production processes for the United 

States stock. This technical bulletin describes these issues 

in detail.

 NESC Technical Bulletins 41

View all NESC Technical 

Bulletins from 2007 to 2020 

at nesc.nasa.gov.
Learning from Past 

Mistakes to Safeguard 

Spaceflight’s Future

An unprecedented number of human spaceflight systems are 

entering their crewed test flight and early operational phases, 

including systems developed by NASA and its contractors, commercial crew partners, and at least two commercial suborbital 

space tourism operators. But the start of every human spaceflight program since the 1967 Apollo 1 fire has been marred by 

major mishaps and significant close calls. Recently, the NESC 

and NASA Safety Center (NSC) completed an in-depth study 

of these historical mishaps, which has provided a rich dataset 

to help advance the state of the art in system safety and, as a 

result, raise the bar for flight and ground crew safety. 

A Study of Early Program Mishaps

Looking at mishaps that occurred during testing and early operations, the NESC/NSC team chose eight for their study, including mishaps from the Apollo, Soyuz, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and Constellation (Ares 1-X test flight) Programs as well 

as commercial suborbital systems. Prior studies by NASA and 

others have cataloged close calls and mishaps by flight phase 

(ref. Significant Incidents and Close Calls in Human Spaceflight, 

JSC Safety and Mission Assurance https://spaceflight.nasa.

gov/outreach/SignificantIncidents/index.html). The NESC/NSC 

study further advanced our understanding of systemic safety issues that affected multiple programs.

The study’s goal was to identify recurring organizational causes 

that, if addressed within the broader context of support systems 

and processes, would have a maximum impact on reducing the 

frequency and/or severity of incidents, especially those in integrated test flight and early operational phases. While seldom 

identified as root causes, these recurring causes may be overlooked or inadequately addressed by actions resulting from a 

single investigation board’s findings and recommendations. 

“No one wants to learn by mistakes, but 

we cannot learn enough from successes 

to go beyond the state of the art.” 

 - Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human

Top: The Artemis missions will depend on innovative but complex 

systems and technologies. Systems safety will be of utmost importance.

Middle: Parts of the Apollo 1 command module after the fire.

Bottom: During the launch of STS-1, a low estimate of the pressure spike 

generated by the reflection of the solid rocket booster initial overpressure

wave resulted in nearly catastrophic damage to the orbiter.

42 Lessons Learned
Most Common Recurring Causes 

The study team identified 180 causes across the 8 mishaps, with 

an average of 22.5 causes per incident. From those causes, the 

team was able to classify 25 recurring-cause types. Number 

one on the list, Inadequate technical controls or technical risk 

management practices, had the highest number of occurrences, 16, and contributed to every mishap in the study. Examples 

of insufficient analysis of technical or safety issues or inadequate readiness reviews were seen across the mishaps, such 

as Skylab’s meteoroid shield (MS), which was damaged during 

launch. New to Skylab were the shield material and auxiliary 

tunnel stowage method, which was subject to the supersonic 

freestream during ascent. Despite rigorous technical reviews 

and experienced leadership, the effects of aerodynamic load 

and aeroelastic interactions between the shield and its external 

pressure environment during launch were not seen until flight. 

Similarly, there were 12 occurrences of incomplete procedures 

in 7 of the incidents, as seen during SpaceShipOne ground 

operations. While testing a steel tank carrying approximately 

10,000 pounds of nitrous oxide (N2O), the tank exploded, killing 

three ground crew members and injuring three others. Material 

safety documents from N2O suppliers cautioned against pressure shock, but the work instructions contained no warnings 

about those dangers or steps to reduce the risk of a serious 

mishap. Scaled Composites workers could stand behind a 

chain link fence near the tank during testing because there was 

no designated hazard control area. 

Contributing to six of the incidents were system design and development issues. One example included the inaugural launch 

of the Space Shuttle on April 12, 1981. A significantly low estimate of the pressure spike generated by the reflection of the 

solid rocket booster (SRB) ignition overpressure (IOP) wave 

resulted in nearly catastrophic damage to the orbiter. The SRB 

IOP was anticipated, but prelaunch modeling used Tomahawk 

missile motor data to validate the models, and the SRBs had 

much higher ignition pressures. The Tomahawk ignition test 

was accepted as a sufficient simulation as engineers did not 

fully appreciate the effect of the differences between the SRB 

and Tomahawk ignition characteristics.

 

Inadequate inspection or secondary verification requirements 

was a cause of main and reserve parachute failure on Soyuz 1, 

which ended in the death of the single cosmonaut on board. The 

parachute container had been damaged during a thermal protection system baking process, however, there was no requirement 

to inspect the parachute container for contamination or damage. 

The Apollo-1 pad fire on January 27, 1967, was preceded by a 

similar event: an electrical fire of an Apollo command module 

during an environmental control system test in a vacuum chamber. This was an example of inadequate organizational learning 

systems. The test was conducted under a lower atmospheric 

pressure (i.e., 5 psi to simulate cabin pressure in space versus 

16.7 psi for the LC-34 test), but in a 100% oxygen environment. 

However, the test incident report was classified and inaccessible to personnel without clearance. (continues...)

Top Nine Recurring

Cause Types

1. Inadequate technical controls or 

technical risk management practices 

2. Incomplete procedures 

3. System design and development 

issues 

4. Inadequate inspection or secondary 

verification requirements 

5. Inadequate organizational learning 

systems 

6. Inadequate schedule controls 

7. Inadequate task analysis and design 

processes 

8. Organizational design issues 

9. Organizational safety culture issues 

Vulnerable

Average

Resilient

Risk

Negative /

Minimal

Margins

Verified

Positive

Margins

Minimal /

Low Margins

Identifying and Addressing Underlying/Systemic

Safety Issues Improves Robustness Robustness

Lessons Learned 43
44 Lessons Learned

In the taxonomy used in the study, systemic safety issues have organizational and/or dual-role causes.

Organizational Causes

Training Systems

Design Systems

Enabling Systems

Senior Leadership

Dual-Role Causes

(Org. and/or Local Factors)

Procedures

Task Team

Quality Control

Supervision

Concentrate on these factors to define the problem(s)

Concentrate on these factors to define the solution(s) -

corrective and/or preventive actions

Active Failures Latent Failures Active and/or Latent Failures

Local-Resource Causes

Individuals

Material Resources and

Work Environment

Support Information

Applying Past Lessons to Future Missions

To make organizational systems more robust and resilient to mishaps, systemic safety issues should be addressed, especially as 

spacecraft and launch vehicles operate closer to their design 

limits. This requires a broad systems perspective looking across 

different types of mishaps and close calls, with actions that focus 

on being proactive and preventive complementing those actions 

that are more reactive and corrective in nature. The NESC itself 

was established in 2003 as a direct result of the Columbia tragedy, created as a solution to an underlying, or systemic, safety 

issue affecting crewed, non-crewed, and science missions.

Through a Human Spaceflight Knowledge Sharing Forum and 

series of panel discussions and presentations, the study team’s 

primary recommendation to human spaceflight program personnel was to internalize these study results, consider their 

personal degree of safety accountability, and determine whether additional mishap risk reduction actions are warranted. Before crewed flights begin, personnel should step back from their 

busy schedules and ask questions like “What else can be done 

within my area of responsibility to ensure crew safety?” “What 

are we doing now that needs to be improved?” “What could be 

stopped and replaced with a better approach?” “What is working in other subsystems than can be extended to my subsystem?” Hopefully, the results from this study provide data and 

examples to seed those discussions.

The shared purpose of the NESC and NSC is helping NASA 

programs achieve safety goals through engineering and technical excellence. For those in the human spaceflight community, 

excellence is often perceived as being synonymous with perfection. Surgeon and author Atul Gawande wrote, “No matter 

what measures are taken, doctors will sometimes falter, and it 

isn’t reasonable to ask that we achieve perfection. What is reasonable is to ask that we never cease to aim for it.” The flight, 

ground, and organizational systems, processes, and decision 

making will sometimes falter, and tragedies will occur. Although 

it is true that the only way to maintain a perfect human spaceflight safety record is to never fly, human spaceflight organizations can never cease aiming for perfection...and excellence.

In 2019, the study was expanded to include recent mishaps, and a 

final report was published (NASA/TM 2020-220573). The results 

were also featured in the NESC Academy and an NSC Safety 

Webinar series. For more information, contact Dr. Timothy Barth,

tim.barth@nasa.gov or Steve Lilley, steve.k.lilley@nasa.gov.

During launch of Skylab 1, there was a complete loss of the 

micrometeoroid shield from around the lab and damage to a solar 

array. Repairs made during the Skylab 2 mission included installing a 

sunshade for thermal control and releasing the damaged solar array.
NESC at the

Centers

Drawing Upon Resources from 

the Entire Agency to Ensure 

Mission Success

From top left: Stennis Space Center, Armstrong Flight 

Research Center, Langley Research Center, Ames Research 

Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Glenn Research Center, 

Kennedy Space Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Goddard 

Space Flight Center, and Johnson Space Center.

NASA Employees Supporting

NESC Work in FY20

ARC

58 61

124

AFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC

31

48

73

80

74

17

219

 NESC at the Centers 45
46 NESC at the Centers

The Ames Research Center (ARC) supports a diverse suite of capabilities for the NESC including advanced computing, aerodynamics testing, intelligent systems, aerothermal/entry, descent, and landing (EDL) modeling, thermal protection materials, and 

human factors research. ARC is represented on 15 NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). The Technical Fellow for Human 

Factors is also resident at ARC. ARC has a long history of EDL research and development. ARC’s Dr. Michael Wright has long 

been a key part of EDL development and now serves as deputy lead of NASA’s EDL systems capability team, helping guide the 

future direction of this critical area of spaceflight for the Agency. Experts in entry systems, under Dr. Michael Barnhardt, provided 

key support to the Orion program investigating the thermocouple anomaly observed on EFT-1, combining interactions of aerothermal ablation with aerodynamics and trajectory analyses, to develop understanding of complex thermal-fluid flow phenomena. 

Ames Research Center

Working Across Disciplines to Advance EDL Capability

Dr. Michael Wright has served as the Agency’s EDL deputy capability lead as well as a 

member of the Aerosciences TDT, both of which have allowed him broad reach into multiple 

NASA projects. His work in entry systems modeling has focused on improving the fidelity 

of modeling and simulation for all of NASA’s EDL missions, including Mars 2020, which 

launched in July. Because EDL influences many disciplines, including Aerosciences, thermal, structures, materials, and flight dynamics, Dr. Wright works with many of the NASA 

Technical Fellows. “It serves as an extremely useful and fruitful collaboration,” he said, 

giving everyone more insight into the depth and breadth of a problem. He also works with 

the Aerosciences TDT, helping to propose solutions to the discipline’s technical challenges. 

When he was the project manager of Entry Systems Modeling, he led the development of 

computational abilities for high-fidelity parachute fluid dynamics. In his TDT role, he has 

continued that effort as the topic lead for two early-stage innovation grants for parachute 

modeling. “We need to understand the strange dynamic behavior of parachutes, as most of 

our missions require them. We’re right on the cusp of substantially contributing to a better 

understanding of that challenge.” 

Advancing the Aerosciences Discipline

To help the NESC better understand the Orion Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1 thermocouple anomaly, Dr. Michael Barnhardt brought expertise from the Space Technology Mission 

Directorate’s Entry Systems Modeling Project (ESM) to aid in the investigation. As ESM 

manager, he knew the project might help the NESC determine the cause of thermocouple 

interference by providing cutting-edge analysis of the interaction between ablation products 

and the surrounding plasma field. ESM has also partnered with the NESC to advance technology in parachute modeling and free-flight computational fluid dynamics (CFD). “Freeflight CFD allows a simulated capsule to fly realistic trajectories. If we can understand 

drivers of entry vehicle flight dynamics, we can better predict how they will fly without being 

completely reliant on expensive ground tests. Thinking longer-term, free-flight CFD capability has potential to impact how we develop guidance and control for entry vehicles.” Dr. 

Barnhardt also brings his aerothermodynamics and thermal protection system background 

to the Aerosciences Technical Discipline Team, which allows him to interface with discipline 

experts from across the Agency. “We are frequently asked to work at the intersection of 

multiple disciplines, and being a part of the TDT has greatly benefited my work.”

Dr. Michael Wright

Dr. Michael Barnhardt

58 ARC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20
Armstrong Flight Research Center

48 AFRC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

Jessica Malara

Tracking Every Step

of an Assessment

Ms. Jessica Malara is a risk manager, 

assessing the risks an AFRC project 

might encounter that could impact time, 

resources, and costs. To manage eight 

projects, Ms. Malara’s workday requires 

strict attention to detail and a strong eye 

for forecasting problems long before they 

can arise. It was this skill set the NESC 

needed in a scheduler for its PBA. “I collect data from the PBA Team on every 

task needed to run a successful program.” 

That includes tracking each of those tasks 

as well as every key milestone, deliverable, and commitment date and ensuring 

the PBA team is on track to meet them. 

“I enjoy working with a diverse group of 

people with different backgrounds and 

watching their efforts come together to 

fly the PBA mission. With PBA, I think the 

work is important, and I’m learning more 

than just my job, I’m learning about everyone’s role in PBA. I like that I can provide 

assessments to the team so they can proactively plan resources and schedule to 

mitigate potentially impactful outcomes.”

Jonathan Brown

Taking a Holistic Approach

to Systems Engineering 

As the Systems Engineering and Integration Lead for SOFIA, Mr. Jonathan 

Brown oversees the configuration management for the project and also serves 

as the flight systems integration lead and 

software manager. With a robust systems 

engineering (SE) focus, the project has 

moved into its operations and sustainment phase, successfully managing its 

science workload even as staffing requirements diminish. Mr. Brown also brings his 

SE background to NASA’s Systems Engineering Working Group Planning Team, 

where he helps coordinate its yearly 

workshop. “We’re interested in making 

SE that much better and more efficient for 

NASA. As we all struggle to do more without additional resources, we look at every 

opportunity to use model-based systems 

engineering and collaborative tools that 

will make SE processes more efficient. 

That is what the workshop is all about,” 

he said. “We network with other SE subject matter experts at every Center and 

work to find a common understanding regarding risk leadership and tool sets the 

Agency can embrace.” 

The Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) provided technical expertise to the NESC for numerous activities in 2020. For the 

past two years, AFRC committed its entire fighter aircraft fleet and a large contingent of staff to gather critically important breathing 

data from pilots flying these high performance jets. AFRC has been instrumental in the NESC’s flight test campaign to gather missing information for the U.S. military regarding pilot breathing to help shed light on the human-machine interaction during high-performance flight. Over the assessment duration, AFRC flew approximately 131 sorties utilizing five pilots, six fighter aircraft, and two 

aircrew equipment configurations for the Pilot Breathing Assessment (PBA). AFRC also completed a study to assist prospective 

NASA science partners to improve cryostat designs for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) program. 

Priscilla Taylor-Percival

Supporting F/A-18 and 

F-15 Pilots in Flight

To better understand pilot breathing behaviors during the PBA, NASA test pilots 

equipped with specialized sensors flew 

NASA F/A-18 and F-15 aircraft through 

pre-specified flight profiles. During flight, 

Ms. Priscilla “Sim” Taylor-Percival and Ms. 

Bonnadeene Trimble assisted the pilots 

in accurately marking the starts and ends 

of flight maneuvers to be compared later 

to breathing data. Providing countdowns, 

taking notes, and publishing flight data for 

researchers was challenging work. “I’ve 

been at NASA for 35 years, but the Pilot Breathing Assessment has been the 

most exciting,” said Ms. Taylor-Percival, 

who has scribed for other NASA aircraft. 

“I have a lot of experience working with 

the pilots’ office and the researchers.” 

She mentored Ms. Trimble, who was new 

to scribing. “It was a whole new experience and really opened my eyes to more 

of the very cool things NASA does. Sim 

and I are a great team. She’s pushed me 

forward and given me more confidence in 

myself and what I can do.” 

Bonnadeene Trimble 

 NESC at the Centers 47
48 NESC at the Centers

Charles Ruggeri

Laura Maynard-Nelson

Parachute Ground Extraction Testing

Mr. Charles Ruggeri began his tenure at GRC more than 10 years ago as an intern from 

nearby University of Akron. Today, the aerospace engineer spends much of his time in the 

Center’s impact dynamics lab capturing data with high-speed photogrammetry. The NESC 

recently called on his expertise to configure a suite of more than 14 high-speed cameras 

to capture a parachute pack ground extraction test. He was a member of the NESC assessment team that designed a unique ground test configuration to aid CCP in comparing 

computational model results to actual physical measurements. The data would validate the 

model and inform future missions. The team used the Langley Impact Dynamics Load Facility, rigging a large mass to swing down from the gantry crane and extract the parachute at 

flight-like speeds. “The NESC team came up with test parameters and how the data would 

be fed into the models. There was a lot of planning involved. In the end, the test worked 

even better than expected,” he said. “Everyone on the assessment team had the same 

goal, and when everyone has the same goal, it is infectious. The test was a big success 

and a very proud moment for me.” 

Evaluating Cyclomatic Complexity

Ms. Laura Maynard-Nelson’s childhood love of space likely led to her more than 30-year 

career at GRC. “It came from growing up with a father who was fascinated by it and my 

brother, who also worked at NASA for a while.” Her time at NASA has been focused on 

software, and she has watched software systems grow in complexity, along with the tests 

required to verify them for spaceflight. The former chief of GRC’s Flight Software Branch 

and now co-deputy for the NASA Technical Fellow for Software brought her expertise to 

an NESC assessment to evaluate the software metric, Cyclomatic Complexity. The metric 

evaluates every function within a software system to assign a complexity level. “This will 

help us determine the appropriate levels of testing we need for our safety-critical software.” 

Even a small software system can involve up to 50 separate functions, each of which require multiple test cases for verification, she said. “It’s been an eye-opener for all of us.” 

She has enjoyed the unique opportunities the assessment has provided her. “It is exciting 

and lets me feel actively engaged and doing something for the discipline and the Agency.” 

The Glenn Research Center (GRC) provided a broad spectrum of technical expertise to 19 NESC technical assessments/activities and 19 NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). These activities supported all NASA mission directorates as well as several 

cross-cutting discipline efforts. GRC provided significant contributions this year through the use of specialized 3-D scanning/modeling tools and high-speed photogrammetry to capture the dynamics of parachute extraction for the Commercial Crew Program 

(CCP). GRC also provided an acting Technical Fellow for Software and the evaluation of software complexity using the cyclomatic 

complexity metric to help determine the appropriate level of testing for key human spaceflight applications. The NASA Technical 

Fellows for Cryogenics and Loads & Dynamics, as well as deputies for the Propulsion; Electrical Power; Software; Systems Engineering; and Nuclear Power & Propulsion TDTs, are resident at GRC.

Glenn Research Center

61 GRC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) supported a wide range of NESC activities, including 35 assessments with 60 engineers, 

technicians, and scientists participating. Key assessments included Guidelines for an Avionics Radiation Hardness Assurance, 

Recommendations on Use of Commercial-off-the-Shelf Guidance for all Mission Risk Classification, Aerodynamic Buffet Flight Test, 

ISS Battery Charge Discharge Unit Flight Anomaly Investigation, Reference Architecture for ISS and Exploration Extravehicular 

Activity Power System, Risk Evaluation of ABSL Moli-M Cell Lithium-Ion Batteries for L2 Missions, Independent Assessment Study 

for the GSFC Laser Interferometer Space Antenna Laser, Space Charging of the Ocean Color Instrument Rotating Mechanism, 

and State of Hydrazine Synthesis and its Potential Impact on Spaceflight Applications. In addition, the NASA Technical Fellows for 

Systems Engineering; Mechanical Systems; and Guidance, Navigation, & Control; and the NESC Chief Scientist reside at GSFC.

Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. Diego Janches

Jill Stanton 

Monitoring Meteoroids in the Southern Sky

A metric ton of meteors, most the size of a grain of sand, enter Earth’s atmosphere daily, 

and are a threat to satellites, spacecraft, astronauts, and the International Space Station 

(ISS). “They are very small, but very fast and can cause serious damage,” said Dr. Diego 

Janches, a research astrophysicist in the GSFC Heliophysics Science Division. Until recently, most observations were focused over the northern hemisphere. “There are many 

characteristics of the southern meteor environment we didn’t know because we were half 

blind to the sky,” he said. Recently he teamed with the NESC in a multiyear effort to upgrade 

the Southern Argentina Agile Meteor Radar meteoroid monitoring facility to collect data for 

NASA’s Meteoroid Environment Office. Following the upgrades, Dr. Janches’s team began 

capturing measurements in late September 2019, and the following March they were able 

to detect the precise location and pattern of an unexpected meteor outburst in the southern 

hemisphere (The Astrophysical Journal, May 2020). “In going to the Moon and Mars, this 

will be an important source of data and offer a better understanding and more thorough 

monitoring of the meteoroid environment.” 

Providing a Broad Perspective

on Materials & Processes 

As a member of the Materials Technical Discipline Team, Ms. Jelila Stanton has provided 

expertise for an NESC assessment and helped revise Agency standards and guidelines. 

“I enjoy having the opportunity to collaborate with experts around NASA because I learn 

so much from the process,” she said. As head of GSFC Materials Engineering, she and 

her team of 30 engineers and technicians regularly assist the NESC with Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels inspection, insight into astronaut safety risks, and analyses into 

a variety of materials issues and anomalies. “We all work on a wide array of hardware and 

instruments for flight missions in planetary and earth science, astrophysics, ISS payloads, 

and astronaut tools. We learn from each project and have many lessons learned and historical findings we can draw from for new materials applications.” Across more than 20 

laboratories, they work technical issues from trade studies in the proposal phase to on-orbit 

anomaly investigations. And she routinely shares the unique expertise of the branch. “With 

so many labs and capabilities, I find we help resolve issues through consulting, testing, or 

analysis in areas that some projects didn’t even realize we cover.”

73 GSFC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

 NESC at the Centers 49
50 NESC at the Centers

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

80 JPL Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

Dr. Bryan McEnerney

Charting the Course for 

Additive Manufacturing

Leading the Materials and Processes 

group at JPL, Dr. Bryan McEnerney was 

part of a team of additive manufacturing 

(AM) experts that helped the NESC develop Agency standards for this 3D-printing technology, which has applications 

for both crewed and non-crewed spaceflight hardware. He was also part of the 

NESC review of a commercial partner’s 

AM program. “More and more companies 

are adopting this technology and want to 

put it on high value spaceflight missions. 

It’s tremendously exciting because these 

standards are a first of their kind, comprehensive documents that explain what 

is needed to qualify material for AM and 

ensure best-in-practice approaches.” The 

assessments also allowed Dr. McEnerney to foster his Agency knowledge base. 

“I can confidently say that I know good 

people I can call at any NASA Center. It 

is all too easy to wear a small Center hat 

rather than the large NASA hat, but these 

activities bring in people from all the Centers, which benefits everyone.”

Lorraine Johnson

Managing the Fiscal Health

of NESC Assessments

As a Resource Analyst, Ms. Lorraine 

Johnson oversees the financial aspects 

of NESC work performed at JPL by tracking all assigned assessment tasks and 

TDT work. She forecasts budgets and 

monitors funding and spending to ensure 

the more than 60 active projects at JPL 

are financially healthy and meeting their 

monetary goals. Ms. Johnson’s work with 

the NESC has allowed her to meet her 

counterparts across the NASA Centers 

and given her broad insight into the business side of NASA and NESC projects. 

“We all work together to make sure we 

don’t have overrun issues and stay on top 

of funding requirements. It might not be 

as exciting to talk about the finance aspect of the work, but there is a lot of effort 

and diligence required to do the job right. 

It’s also very important that your work is 

trustworthy and performed accurately.” At 

JPL for 21 years, Ms. Johnson said, “I’ve 

been in business management for a long 

time, and I really enjoy the work.” 

Throughout the year, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) provided technical expertise to over 35 NESC assessments and each 

of the 20 Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). Efforts supported both the Science and Human Exploration and Operations Mission 

Directorates, along with the Department of Defense. Tasks included the design and flight test of an in-mask CO2 water vapor 

sensor for the Pilot Breathing Assessment, flexible body dynamics modeling, low-jitter space observatory attitude-control analysis, 

materials analysis related to a DC-8 mishap, and development of methods for reliable management of mass properties. In addition, 

JPL provided support to a number of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program activities. The NESC COPV working group lead and TDT 

deputies for Space Environments and Guidance, Navigation, & Control also reside at JPL.

Dr. Ratnakumar Bugga

Developing and Evaluating 

Battery Technologies

A battery scientist at JPL, Dr. Ratnakumar 

Bugga develops advanced energy storage technologies for NASA/JPL planetary missions in custom chemistries and 

configurations. He assisted the NESC in 

the review of a lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery 

charge-management scheme that monitors half-string voltages in a battery made 

up of a series-parallel network of cells 

for extravehicular activities. He was also 

called on to assess the risk of swapping 

lithium-ion batteries of different chemistries for the James Webb Space Telescope mission. Dr. Bugga has enjoyed 

the challenges of evaluating commercial 

Li-ion cells with high energy/power densities and validating and adapting them for 

future aerospace applications. “Often, we 

encounter unique battery-related problems, and it is exciting to be able to solve 

these system-level issues.” His aim is to 

“provide safe, reliable, and robust battery 

solutions with low mass and volume and 

infuse them into NASA missions, with the 

goals of enabling increased science payload and enhanced mission lifetimes.”
Jason Wolinsky

Developing and Testing

a New Reefing Line Cutter

Mr. Jason Wolinsky is the test director 

for the Energy Systems Test Area in 

the JSC Propulsion and Power Division 

Test Lab. He is working to develop, test, 

and qualify a new government-furnished 

reefing line cutter, a pyrotechnic device 

that allows a staged opening of main 

and drogue parachutes on NASA spacecraft. Typically, Mr. Wolinsky develops 

the plans and procedures to test and 

qualify already-established hardware, 

but the reefing line cutters offer him the 

new challenge of developing and testing hardware from the ground up. This 

includes determining the environments 

the cutters will encounter during flight, 

abort, and deployment to ensure they 

can survive those conditions. To help 

develop those environments, the NESC 

has provided additional expertise from 

various Centers to assist in the effort. “It 

is a great approach to find people who 

do similar or different testing that is relevant to what we do. The NESC can pull 

the right people together in the same 

room to tackle those problems.”

Dr. Donna Dempsey

Understanding the Human Role 

in NASA Missions and Systems

As a Discipline Deputy for Human Factors, Dr. Donna Dempsey supports a 

variety of human factors work across 

the Agency. The discipline reaches into 

many areas of aeronautics and spaceflight, including human performance; 

mission planning; design of habitats, vehicles, workstations, workspaces, equipment, and tasks; human-computer and 

human-robotic interaction; and training.

Dr. Dempsey said human factors remains 

a challenge as NASA focuses on returning to space. Specializing in space flight 

training, she assists in managing human 

factors assessments and is leading the 

development of a tradespace analysis 

method to better balance the number of 

crew against mission design parameters. “There are trade-offs in determining 

crew size given the mission objectives 

and the capabilities of the vehicle,” she 

said. The analysis will determine important tradespace factors for NASA’s future 

long-duration missions to Mars.

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) and the White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) provided engineering analysis, design, and test 

expertise for the continuous operation of the International Space Station, development of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

and Space Launch System for the upcoming Artemis missions, consultation for Commercial Crew Program vehicles, and the lunar 

Gateway vehicle. JSC personnel provided expertise and leadership to numerous assessments within the Agency relating to SLS 

loads and dynamics; Orion heatshield molded Avcoat block bond verification; frangible joint designs; composite overwrapped 

pressure vessels (COPV); and pilot breathing in high performance aircraft. The NASA Technical Fellows resident at JSC joined 

with other Agency discipline leaders to strengthen technical community connections through joint sponsorship and participation in 

activities such as the Structures, Loads, and Mechanical Systems Young Professionals Forum; the Thermal and Fluids Analysis 

Workshop; and Capability Leadership Teams to help define the future of NASA technical disciplines. 

Johnson Space Center

Dr. Daniel Wentzel

Capturing Test Data at High 

Speeds in the WSTF Test Lab

At the WSTF Hypervelocity Test Lab, Dr. 

Daniel Wentzel leads a team employing two-stage light-gas guns to fire projectiles at speeds up to 24,000 feet per 

second. These guns test critical space 

flight components’ abilities to withstand 

impacts from meteoroid and orbital debris (M/OD). He has supported NESC 

assessments by subjecting COPV materials to simulated M/OD and overseeing 

carbon fiber strand testing for a stress 

rupture study. He also uses the lab’s 

high-speed video and photon Doppler 

velocimetry to capture detonation data 

on pyrotechnic devices; design experiments and analyze data for an ascent 

cover separation mechanism model; 

and create a thermal model to predict 

current-carrying capacity. As a member 

of the Mechanical Systems Technical 

Discipline Team, Dr. Wentzel takes a 

multidisciplinary approach to problem 

solving, “structuring teams around problems to leverage the best of different disciplines. Nobody is as smart as all of us.”

74 JSC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

 NESC at the Centers 51
52 NESC at the Centers

The Kennedy Space Center (KSC) provided technical expertise to 21 NESC activities and Technical Discipline Teams in 2020. 

KSC personnel were engaged in numerous NESC assessments including Commercial Crew Program (CCP) crew module ascent 

cover modeling; Space Launch System propellant pressurization modeling; heatshield thermal instrumentation evaluation; and 

NASA additive manufacturing standard development. Likewise, the NESC provided technical support for KSC programs including 

CCP composite overwrapped pressure vessel analysis; CCP fire suppression analysis; Exploration Ground Systems Crew Module Test Article design evaluation; and Mobile Launcher and Crawler structural crack evaluation. The NASA Technical Fellows for 

Electrical Power and Materials reside at KSC and rely on KSC expertise in many of their activities. The NESC also invested in 

KSC’s laboratories to evaluate Virgin Orbit electro-static discharge testing, and hydrazine synthesis and contamination analysis 

for the Agency.

Kennedy Space Center

Dr. Janelle Coutts

Dr. Robert Youngquist

Assessing Hydrazine Purity

When a new hydrazine manufacturing process led to the presence of unknown contaminants, Dr. Janelle Coutts helped identify the contaminants to determine if they posed any 

risks to thruster systems that use the commodity for various NASA programs. “It is a big 

concern for the propellant community because depending on what these contaminants are, 

they could plate out in a thruster system and cause clogging or poison the catalysts beds 

the fuel comes in contact with.” As the technical lead for an NESC assessment, Dr. Coutts 

used her background in organic chemistry to develop analytical methodologies to identify and quantify the unknown contaminants. Next, the Agency-wide assessment team will 

determine if there are any potential risks to propulsion-system performance, the results of 

which are critical for not only NASA missions, but also government and industry. Dr. Coutts 

appreciates the NESC’s multi-Center approach to solving technical problems. “I am an analytical chemist, but I do not specialize in how catalyst beds are affected, so the NESC has 

helped us get contacts across the Agency to help us get those answers. It’s been a great 

experience.” Dr. Coutts contributed to NESC Technical Bulletin 20-08, page 41. 

Investigating Thermocouple Anomalies

Physicist Dr. Robert Youngquist has been working with the NESC’s Thermocouple Interference During High-Speed Earth Entry Team to investigate thermocouple anomalies seen 

by the Space Shuttle orbiter and Orion Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1 during reentries. 

The thermocouples embedded in the heatshields to measure reentry temperatures showed 

non-physical signal variations near peak heating that were correlated with vehicle maneuvers. To help understand the root cause of this phenomenon, Dr. Youngquist directed tests 

on Shuttle tiles and EFT-1 heatshield thermocouples to demonstrate how electromagnetic fields could interact with the thermocouple wire and yield signal variations. “We would 

propose theories, test them, review the data, and then try again.” The team is nearing the 

end of the more than 2-year assessment to understand the source of these anomalies and 

provide the program feedback to ensure thermocouples operate properly during re-entry. 

“It’s been a long effort with a very diverse team,” he said. As the originator of KSC’s Optical 

Instrumentation Laboratory (now called the KSC Applied Physics Laboratory), Dr. Youngquist brings more than 30 years of experience to the team. His experience also aided the 

NESC in the demonstration of an ultrasonic level gauge for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle to determine fuel levels in the service module’s hypergolic tanks.

31 KSC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20
Dr. Richard Boitnott Lisa Jones

Langley Research Center

219 LaRC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

Designing a ground test that would simulate main parachutes being extracted 

from a spacecraft parachute bay was a 

unique challenge for Dr. Richard Boitnott. “This was different from other testing 

I’ve done,” said the 40-year NASA veteran test engineer, who conducts crash 

and water impact testing for NASA and 

commercial spacecraft and aircraft. His 

unique test design involved a pendulum 

swing of a large mass outfitted with a tail 

hook that would swing down, lock onto 

the parachute harness, and extract it from 

its container. Energy modulators used in 

the parachute extraction chain limited 

loads to prevent lines from snapping, 

and a large sand dune brought the mass 

to a halt after its high-speed swing from 

LaRC’s 240-foot tall gantry. “It was like a 

lab experiment out of a physics course. 

Everything worked beautifully, and the 

data we measured agreed with the software model’s prediction,” he said. “Every 

project the NESC brings draws in people 

from all the Centers, and it gave the gantry a new possibility for similar tests.”

Technical Lead Dr. Matthew Chamberlain 

managed the overall execution of the 

extraction test. “The goal was to develop data to help validate the customer’s 

computer model, so the team studied the 

model, then designed a test to check it. 

This was a completely new type of test. 

The geometry was complicated, as well 

as getting enough speed to simulate the 

parachute being pulled out of the bay.” 

The test required coordinating the efforts 

of a distributed set of engineers, technicians, machine shops, and photogrammetric measurement experts to generate the data needed to validate model 

predictions. “There were a lot of moving 

parts required to get it done,” he said. As 

part of the Structural Dynamics Branch, 

Dr. Chamberlain typically works on small 

spacecraft structures, but said “executing 

a program of this scale exposed me to 

many new aspects of project management, budgeting, and workforce planning. 

The test and the results generated really 

impressed everyone, but the best part is 

that it was dreamed up by people right 

here at Langley. That to me is really cool.” 

Dr. Matthew Chamberlain

As the facility manager for the test, Ms. 

Lisa Jones said the extraction test was 

“very much a team effort. There was a 

lot of brainstorming and working through 

multiple ideas. Complexity-wise, this test 

was right up there with some of more 

complex work we’ve done.” When early 

component-level tests needed the swing 

mass to move at even higher speeds, 

they added 0.75-inch thick bungie cords 

to reach higher velocities. “But the bungie has issues. If you pull it back and let 

sit too long, it softens. So, we had to work 

quickly and efficiently and figure out how 

to get what we needed from an environment that was changing all the time.” Ms. 

Jones has been performing impact testing at NASA for 34 years, including small 

aircraft, Orion test articles, helicopters, 

and even a stock car. “It’s a great thing 

to do for a living, but it can be intense,” 

she said. “This test was not without its 

challenges, but it was a lot of fun.” 

Unique Parachute Extraction Test Required Skill and Creativity

The NESC relies on Langley’s expertise for design evaluation, ground model validation tests, trajectory analysis, material testing 

for future launch vehicles, and other critical assessments. Over 100 technical experts participated on Technical Discipline Teams 

across the Agency. Langley delivered a highly instrumented payload for an aerodynamic buffeting flight test and completed computational fluid dynamics modeling to determine what caused NASA’s research P3 aircraft to experience cracking in the ailerons during 

flight. Langley’s facilities were used to conduct multiple wind tunnel tests, characterize defects in propulsion system bellows through 

nondestructive evaluation (NDE), and develop a proving ground for a parachute extraction test to validate computational models 

prior to crewed flight. The NASA Technical Fellows for Aerosciences, Avionics, Flight Mechanics, and NDE are resident at LaRC.

 NESC at the Centers 53
54 NESC at the Centers

124 MSFC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

Charles Pierce

Dr. Emily Willis

Marshall Space Flight Center

Space Environments for the Artemis Program

Dr. Emily Willis is a member of the Natural Environments Branch and a key element of 

the NESC Space Environments TDT for four years. Her primary responsibilities include 

space environment specification and spacecraft charging analysis. She supports a variety 

of programs including the Space Launch System, Commercial Crew, Gateway, and the 

Human Landing System. She has coordinated support from members of the Space 

Environments TDT in numerous activities related to developing and evaluating new space 

environment specifications for NASA’s human spaceflight programs. The NESC recently 

provided support for a multi-Center, multi-discipline team, which she established for the 

development of a new plasma environment specification for Artemis missions. The team 

used THEMIS-ARTEMIS data to define the lunar plasma environment, which is now 

being used in the design of the Gateway and Human Landing System. Her emphasis on 

collaborative engagement of the NESC Space Environment discipline in the ongoing, fastpaced work of the Artemis Program allows for effective independent review and community 

buy-in as the mission designs mature.

A Journey in the Advancements

of Propulsion Technology

Mr. Pierce joined NASA in 1987 at KSC where he specialized in the servicing of the Space 

Shuttle Program orbiter with hypergolic propellants for the orbital maneuvering system and 

reaction control subsystems. In 1996, he transferred to MSFC, where he has led or supported the development of multiple hypergolic and cryogenic engines and propulsion systems 

including the Fastrac/Propulsion Test Article, Next Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle, 

U.S. Propulsion Module, and Crew Exploration Vehicle. From 2007 to 2019, he served as 

the Deputy Chief, then Chief, of the Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Branch. He became a 

Deputy NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion in 2019 and has led the NESC Assessments 

for Transient Combustion Modeling of Hypergolic Systems (see page 32), and the Nitrogen 

Tetroxide Properties Development for the National Institute for Standards and Technology 

Reference Fluid Thermodynamics and Transport Properties database. His time supporting 

the NESC has opened his eyes to the crosscutting capabilities that the NESC provides to 

the Agency, and to the pockets of propulsion expertise that reside throughout our country. 

The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provided engineer, scientist, and technician subject matter expert support to over 38 

NESC activities. These activities involved exploration systems development, space operations and environmental effects, science, 

and crosscutting discipline activities. Some of the more significant efforts included composite shell buckling, additive manufacturing, model-based systems engineering, high-temperature insulations, advanced chemical propulsion, modeling and simulation of 

launch vehicle/spacecraft interfaces, and human factors task analyses. The NASA Technical Fellows for Propulsion; Space Environments; Environmental Control & Life Support; and the Technical Discipline Team (TDT) Deputies for Propulsion; Nuclear Power 

& Propulsion; Materials; Space Environments; Loads & Dynamics; Nondestructive Evaluation; Cryogenics; Flight Mechanics; and 

Software are resident at MSFC.
17 SSC Employees Supported NESC Work in FY20

 NESC at the Centers 55

Stennis Space Center

Richard Wear

A Unique Perspective on Structures

During its review of the Exploration Systems Development Integrated Hazards, the NESC 

brought in Mr. Robert Williams to address any potential structural issues during ground 

systems testing. His expertise comes from 11 years at SSC, where his focus is on structures – from design and analysis to loads and dynamics issues seen during ground testing 

of rocket engines at the Center’s test stands. While it is the engines that are tested, the 

test structures supporting the engines are also subject to stress and fatigue, he said. “We 

upgrade and change our facilities for every test program, but it is difficult to do a dynamic 

analysis of an entire test facility. So when we find resonant frequency issues or components 

behaving in ways we weren’t expecting, we do analysis and work on solutions to mitigate 

or avoid them.” Working with these structures, some of which date back to the 1960s, often 

involves studying old designs without much insight into the rationale behind changes made 

many years ago. “It can be like interpreting a foreign language,” he said. “But that is the 

unique perspective I bring.” 

Networking Within the Thermal Discipline

For 10 years, Mr. Richard Wear has attended the annual Thermal Fluids Analysis Workshop 

(TFAWS) sponsored by the NESC. “It is a great conference for beginning engineers because 

it offers training, short courses by field experts, and a chance to network within the thermal 

community.” This year, he led a steering committee for the virtually held TFAWS. Virtual 

workshops limited hands-on activities, but still allowed him insight into thermal discipline 

activities across the Agency. As the resident subject matter expert in thermal fluids at 

his Center, he models piping and valve systems and answers questions on the thermal 

dynamics and heat transfer involved in propellant systems. That experience made him a 

valuable consultant on a recent NESC assessment on hydrogen and oxygen pressurization 

systems for the SLS. Mr. Wear also represents SSC on both the Passive Thermal, and 

Environmental Control & Life Support TDTs. “If I have a problem come up, I know who I can 

call at every Center to ask for help. The TDTs are good collaboration tools.” 

Robert Williams

Expert technical support was provided to the NESC by Stennis Space Center (SSC), including subject matter expertise in hardware testing, facility capabilities, risk assessment, test operations, modeling, and space exploration. Despite SSC’s small number 

of employees, two new experts were added to NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). Particularly noteworthy is the valuable 

contribution of three SSC subject matter experts on the Artemis I integrated hazards assessment. SSC also supplied experts and 

early-career engineers for assessments of Parker O-Ring Material Obsolescence, Aerospace Valve Industrial Base and Acquisition Practices, Filtration for Propellant and Pressurization Systems, and Space Launch System (SLS) Booster Nozzle Throat Plug 

Debris. Additional activities included a failure investigation for the Commercial Crew Program, plus modeling support on Sierra 

Nevada Hydrogen Peroxide Propellant System and SLS Hydrogen and Oxygen Pressurization Systems. In collaboration with the 

NASA Propulsion Technical Fellow, the SSC Engineering Director volunteered to host engineers from other Centers for hands-on 

training to help the Agency enhance the proficiency of the NASA workforce.
Clinton H. 

Cragg

LaRC

Donald S. 

Parker

KSC

Dr. Michael G. 

Gilbert

LaRC

Michael D. 

Squire

LaRC

NESC PRINCIPAL ENGINEERS

NASA TECHNICAL FELLOWS

Cornelius J. 

Dennehy

GNC

Dr. Morgan B. Abney

Environmental Control

& Life Support

Dr. Daniel J. 

Dorney

Propulsion

Dr. Christopher J. 

Iannello

Electrical Power

Dr. Michael J.

Dube

Mechanical Systems

Jon B.

Holladay

Systems Engineering

Dr. Robert F.

Hodson

Avionics

NESC CHIEF ENGINEERS

Dr. W. Lance 

Richards

AFRC

Stephen A. 

Minute

KSC

Fernando A. 

Pellerano

GSFC

Kenneth R.

Hamm Jr.

ARC

Robert S.

Jankovsky

GRC

Steven J.

Gentz

MSFC

Kimberly A.

Simpson

JPL

NESC Leadership

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

N

Jill L. Prince

NESC Integration 

Office Manager

Dr. Azita Valinia

NESC Chief

Scientist

Timmy R. Wilson

NESC

Director

Michael T. Kirsch

NESC Deputy

Director

Michael P. Blythe

NESC Deputy Director 

for Safety (Acting)

Dr. Joseph I.

Minow

Space Environments

Daniel G.

Murri

Flight Mechanics

Richard W.

Russell

Materials

Dr. Cynthia H.

Null

Human Factors

Dr. Lorraine E.

Prokop

Software

Dr. William H.

Prosser

Nondestructive Evaluation

Steven L.

Rickman

Passive Thermal
Michael Aguilar

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Software (2005-19)

Frank H. Bauer

NESC Discipline Expert 

for GNC (2003-04)

Michael Blythe

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2008-19)

Dr. Thomas M. Brown

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Propulsion (2014-18)

Dr. Charles J. Camarda

NESC Deputy Director 

for Advanced Projects 

(2006-09)

Kenneth D. Cameron

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2005-08)

Steven F. Cash

NESC Chief Engineer 

MSFC (2005)

Derrick J. Cheston

NESC Chief Engineer 

GRC (2003-07)

J. Larry Crawford

NESC Deputy Director

for Safety (2003-04)

Dr. Nancy Currie-Gregg

NESC Principal Engineer 

(2011-17)

Mitchell L. Davis

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Avionics (2007-09)

Dennis B. Dillman

NESC Chief Engineer 

NASA HQ (2005-08)

Freddie Douglas, III

NESC Chief Engineer 

SSC (2007-08) 

Patricia L. Dunnington

MTSO Mgr. (2006-08)

Dawn C. Emerson

NESC Chief Engineer 

GRC (2011-14)

Walter C. Engelund

NESC Chief Engineer 

LaRC (2009-13)

Patrick G. Forrester

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2009-16)

Wayne R. Frazier

Senior SMA Integration 

Manager (2005-12)

Dr. Michael S. Freeman

NESC Chief Engineer 

ARC (2003-04)

T. Randy Galloway

NESC Chief Engineer 

SSC (2003-04)

Roberto Garcia

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Propulsion (2007-13)

Dr. Edward R. Generazio

NESC Discipline Expert 

for NDE (2003-05)

Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-05)

Oscar Gonzalez

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Avionics (2010-18) 

Michael Hagopian

NESC Chief Engineer 

GSFC 2003-07

David A. Hamilton

NESC Chief Engineer 

JSC (2003-07) 

Dr. Charles E. Harris

NESC Principal Engineer 

(2003-06)

Dr. Steven A. Hawley

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2003-04)

Marc S. Hollander

MTSO Mgr. (2005-06)

George D. Hopson

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Propulsion (2003-07) 

Keith L. Hudkins

NASA HQ OCE Rep. 

(2003-07)

George L. Jackson

NESC Chief Engineer 

GSFC (2015-18) 

Danny D. Johnston

NESC Chief Engineer

MSFC (2003-04) 

Michael W. Kehoe

NESC Chief Engineer 

Dryden Flight Research 

Center (2003-05)

R. Lloyd Keith

NESC Chief Engineer

JPL (2007-16)

Denney J. Keys

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Electrical Power 

(2009-12)

Dr. Dean A. Kontinos

NESC Chief Engineer

ARC (2006-07)

Julie A. Kramer-White

NESC Discipline Expert 

Mechanical Analysis 

(2003-06) 

Nans Kunz

NESC Chief Engineer

ARC (2009-15)

Steven G. Labbe

NESC Discipline Expert 

for Flight Sciences 

(2003-06) 

Matthew R. Landano

NESC Chief Engineer

JPL (2003-04)

Dr. Curtis E. Larsen

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Loads & Dynamics 

(2005-17) 

Dr. David S. Leckrone

NESC Chief Scientist 

(2003-06) 

Richard T. Manella

NESC Chief Engineer

GRC (2009-10) 

John P. McManamen

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Mechanical Systems 

(2003-07) 

Brian K. Muirhead

NESC Chief Engineer

JPL (2005-07) 

Dr. Paul M. Munafo

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-04) 

Stan C. Newberry

MTSO Manager 

(2003-04) 

Dr. Tina L. Panontin

NESC Chief Engineer 

ARC (2008-09)

Joseph W. Pellicciotti

NASA Technical Fellow 

Mechanical Systems 

(2008-13) and NESC 

Chief Engineer GSFC 

(2013-15)

Dr. Robert S. Piascik

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Materials (2003-16)

Dr. Shamim A. Rahman

NESC Chief Engineer 

SSC (2005-06) 

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Structures (2003-17)

Paul W. Roberts

NESC Chief Engineer 

LaRC (2016-19)

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NESC Director

(2003-14)

Jerry L. Ross

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2004-06)

Henry Rotter

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Environmental Control 

& Life Support (2004-19) 

Dr. Charles F. Schafer

NESC Chief Engineer 

MSFC (2006-10)

Dawn M. Schaible

Manager, Systems 

Engineering Office 

(2003-14)

Bryan K. Smith

NESC Chief Engineer 

GRC 2008-10

Dr. James F. Stewart

NESC Chief Engineer 

AFRC (2005-14)

Daniel J. Tenney

MTSO Manager 

(2009-13)

John E. Tinsley

NASA HQ SMA

Manager for NESC 

(2003-04) 

Timothy G. Trenkle

NESC Chief Engineer 

GSFC (2009-13)

Clayton P. Turner

NESC Chief Engineer 

LaRC (2008-09)

Daniel Winterhalter

NESC Chief Scientist 

(2005-20)

Alumni

Michael L.

Meyer

Cryogenics

Dr. Dexter

Johnson

Loads & Dynamics

Kauser S.

Imtiaz

Structures

Michael D.

Smiles

SSC

T. Scott

West

JSC

Mary Elizabeth

Wusk

LaRC

Patrick A. Martin

NASA HQ Senior SMA 

Integration Manager

Barry E. Wilmore

NESC Chief

Astronaut

.Dr. Upendra N.

Singh

Sensors & Instrumentation

Dr. David M. 

Schuster

Aerosciences

 NESC Leadership & Alumni 57
NESC DIRECTOR’S AWARD:

Honors individuals for defending a technical position 

that conflicts with a Program or Organization’s initial or 

prevailing engineering perspectives and for taking 

personal initiative to foster clear and open 

communication and resolve controversial issues.

David E. Williams - In recognition of his courage, strength, 

and persistence highlighting the technical risks associated with 

Commercial Crew Program fire suppression safety systems 

NESC LEADERSHIP AWARD:

Honors individuals for sustained leadership excellence 

demonstrated by establishing a vision, developing and 

managing a plan, and building consensus to proactively 

resolve conflicts and achieve results.

Bohdan Bejmuk - In recognition of continued exceptional 

technical leadership to the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center in proactively reducing risk of NASA’s new Human 

Spaceflight Programs

Matthew K. Chamberlain - In recognition of exemplary 

leadership in support of the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center’s Main Parachute Extraction Ground Test for the 

Commercial Crew Program

Julie Halverson - In recognition of outstanding leadership 

toward successful implementation of new maneuvers that 

enable previously unattainable science collection for the Lunar 

Reconnaissance Orbiter

Thomas G. Ivanco - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in the assessment of Ground Wind Loads and Wind 

Induced Oscillation for Commercial Crew Program launch 

vehicles

Sarah E. Luna - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in the development of the Agency’s Additive 

Manufacturing Standards for crewed spaceflight hardware

Mark B. McClure - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in the testing of propellants and combustible fluids

Stephen F. Peralta - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership resulting in an improved understanding of titanium/

nitrogen tetroxide ignition vulnerability 

Michael Watson - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in support of numerous NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center assessments and the advancement of NASA’s 

systems engineering and integration capability

Brian M. West - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in the development of the Agency’s Additive 

Manufacturing Standards for crewed spaceflight hardware

Sara R. Wilson - In recognition of outstanding technical 

leadership in guiding a dynamic team toward statistical 

engineering methods, demonstrating cost and schedule savings 

while achieving the key engineering goals

NESC ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AWARD:

Honors individuals for making significant engineering 

contributions, developing innovative approaches, and 

ensuring appropriate levels of engineering rigor are 

applied to the resolution of technical issues in support of 

the NESC mission.

James C. Akers - In recognition of engineering excellence 

and innovative implementation of experimental and operational 

modal analysis techniques in evaluating the Artemis Mobile 

Launcher 

William W. Benson - In recognition of engineering excellence 

for the alternate ascent flight control design development 

in support of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s 

Commercial Crew Program Ascent Stability Assessment Team

Mark Balzer - In recognition of engineering excellence as 

the key troubleshooter on the USS Gerald R. Ford’s (CVN-78) 

Advanced Weapon Elevator for the United States Navy

Robert Hall - In recognition of engineering excellence in 

providing the historical perspective and physics-based analysis 

to establish a standard for evaluation of launch vehicle ascent 

stability for commercial crew missions

NESC Honor Awards are given each year to NASA employees, industry representatives, 

and other stakeholders for their efforts and achievements in engineering, leadership, 

teamwork, and communication. These awards formally recognize those who have made 

outstanding contributions to the NESC mission, demonstrate engineering and technical 

excellence, and foster an open environment.

Honoring Those Who Have Made 

Outstanding Contributions in 2020

NESC Honor 

Awards

58 NESC Honor Awards
David L. Iverson - In recognition of engineering excellence to 

the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Pilot Breathing Assessment Team in the field of engineering data analysis support

Mark Karpenko - In recognition of engineering excellence 

and innovative implementation of new maneuvers that enable 

previously unattainable science collection for the Lunar 

Reconnaissance Orbiter

Donald F. Keller - In recognition of engineering excellence 

in developing aeroelastically scaled models and subsequent 

wind tunnel testing for Ground Wind Loads and Wind Induced 

Oscillation of Commercial Crew Program launch vehicles

Cyrus J. Kosztowny - In recognition of engineering excellence 

shown in real-time test-analysis correlation and outstanding 

post-test contributions in support of the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor project

Patrick L. Leser - In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development of the Composite Overwrapped Pressure 

Vessel linear elastic fracture mechanics analysis failure criterion

Jennifer L. Pinkerton - In recognition of engineering 

excellence in the development, testing, and evaluation of an 

atmospheric boundary layer capability for NASA Langley’s 

Transonic Dynamics Tunnel

Adam Przekop - In recognition of engineering excellence 

demonstrated as lead test-article designer for large-scale 

composite testing in support of the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor project 

Kyongchan C. Song - In recognition of engineering excellence 

shown by planning instrumentation, developing the test plans, 

providing pretest predictions, and performing post-test analysis 

in support of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center Shell 

Buckling Knockdown Factor project

Floyd Spencer - In recognition of engineering excellence in the 

development and implementation of innovative probability of 

detection methodologies enabling the successful qualification 

of nondestructive inspection methods for the Artemis I Orion 

heatshield

Warren Ussery - In recognition of engineering excellence in

the development, qualification, and implementation of 

innovative nondestructive evaluation methods to inspect the 

critical heatshield bond line for the Artemis I Orion spacecraft

NESC ADMINISTRATIVE EXCELLENCE AWARD:

Honors individual accomplishments that contributed 

substantially to support NESC mission.

Jonay A. Campbell - In recognition of outstanding technical 

editor support in the creation of the Agency’s Additive 

Manufacturing Standards for crewed spaceflight hardware

Jessica Malara - In recognition of outstanding support of the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Pilot Breathing 

Assessment Team in developing and tracking key project tasks, 

milestones, and deliverables for the final report

Priscilla Taylor-Percival - In recognition of outstanding 

support of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Pilot 

Breathing Assessment Team in flight data processing and data 

team coordination at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center

Bonnadeene Trimble - In recognition of outstanding support 

of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Pilot Breathing 

Assessment Team in flight data product tracking and coordination 

at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center

NESC GROUP ACHIEVEMENT AWARD:

Honors a team of employees comprising government and 

non-government personnel. The award is in recognition of 

outstanding accomplishment through the coordination of 

individual efforts that have contributed substantially to the 

success of the NESC mission.

Human Exploration and Operations, Orbital Flight Test 

Joint Independent Review Team and Artemis Verification

Risk Reduction Support Team - In recognition of exceptional 

contribution to the Human Exploration and Operations 

Mission Directorate in risk reduction and systems engineering 

improvements to the Artemis 2024 schedule

Parker-Hannifin Corporation Ethylene Propylene Rubber

E0515 O-Ring Material Obsolescence - In recognition of 

outstanding dedication and engineering excellence in the 

evaluation of replacement material for propulsion system O-Rings

Nuclear Electric Propulsion and Nuclear Thermal 

Propulsion Technology Maturity Assessment Team - 

In recognition of outstanding dedication and engineering 

excellence in the evaluation of Nuclear Electric Propulsion and 

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion systems and technologies

Transient Combustion Modeling for Hypergolic Engines 

Assessment Team - In recognition of a unique and insightful 

combination of modeling, testing and analysis to determine the 

sources of zots and pressure spikes in hypergolic engines

Commercial Crew Program Bellows Manufacturing 

Anomalies Investigation Assessment Team - In recognition 

of exemplary contributions to the Bellows Manufacturing 

Anomalies Investigation in support of the Commercial Crew 

Program Demonstration Mission-2 Launch

Large-Format Fractional Thermal Runaway Calorimeter 

Development Assessment Team - In recognition of 

outstanding contributions in the development of the LargeFormat Fractional Thermal Runaway Calorimeter and its use to 

quantify thermal runaway energy for lithium-ion cells in excess 

of 100 ampere-hour capacity

Commercial Crew Program Launch Vehicle Ground Wind 

Loads Assessment Team - In recognition of outstanding 

technical achievement in the evaluation of the Ground Wind 

Loads and Wind Induced Oscillation for Commercial Crew 

Program launch vehicles

 NESC Honor Awards 59
Based on Publications NESC Activities

60 Publications

Technical Papers, Conference 

Proceedings, and Technical 

Presentations

Aerosciences

1. Schuster, D.: State of the NASA Aerosciences Discipline. AIAA Sci 

Tech 2020, January 6-10, 2020, Orlando, FL.

2. Schuster, D.: CFD Vision 2030 Integration Committee - Spaceflight 

Grand Challenge, AIAA SciTech 2020, January 6-10, 2020, Orlando, FL.

3. Mitchell, D.; Klyde, D; Pitoniak, S.; Schulze, P.; Manriquez, J.; 

Hoffler, K.; Jackson, E.: NASA Flying Qualities Research Contributions 

to MIL-STD-1797C, NASA/CR-2020-5002350.

4. Schuster, D.: CFD 2030 Grand Challenge: CFD-in-the-Loop Monte 

Carlo Flight Simulation for Space Vehicle Design. AIAA SciTech, 

Nashville, TN.

Avionics

1. Slenski, G.: COP Flight Connector and Wiring. Virtual 2020 NEPP 

Electronics Technology Workshop, June 15-17, 2020, Greenbelt, MD.

Cryogenics

1. Meyer, M.: In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer 

Systems for Crewed Exploration: A Boiling (Prevention) Challenge. 

NASA SLPSRA Fluid Physics Workshop, October 16-17, 2019, 

Cleveland, OH.

2. Meyer, M.: The NASA Cryogenics Tech. Discipline Team and an 

Update of the Long-Life Space Cryocooler Flight Operating Experience 

Survey

3. Meyer, M.: Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology Maturity 

Assessment: Liquid Hydrogen Systems for NTP Liquid Methane/

Liquid Oxygen for In Space Chemical Propulsion Stage. Virtual Space 

Nuclear Propulsion Technologies Meeting 2.

Environmental Control & Life Support

1. Abney, M.; Schnedier, W.; Brown, B.; Stanley, C.; Lange, K.; 

Wetzel, J.; Morrow, R.; Gatens, R.: Comparison of Exploration Oxygen 

Recovery Technology Options Using ESM and LSMAC. International 

Conference on Environmental Systems, 2020.

Guidance, Navigation, & Control

1. Orr, J.; Wall, J.; Dennehy, C.: The Enduring Legacy of Saturn V 

Launch Vehicle Flight Dynamics and Control Design Principles and 

Practices. 70th International Astronautical Congress, October 21-25, 

2019, Washington, DC.

2. Vertaska, I.; VanZwieten, T.; Mann, J.; Connell, B.; Radke, T.; 

Bernatovich, M.: Dynamic Characterization of the Crew Module 

Uprighting System for the NASA Orion Crew Module. OCEANS 2019 

Seattle, October 27-31, 2019, Seattle, WA.

3. Ruth, M.: Use of Exponential Damping Functions as BasisCoordinates for Analyzing Slosh-Decay Data. JANNAF 10th 

Spacecraft Propulsion (SPS) Subcommittees, December 9-13, 2019, 

Tampa, FL.

4. VanZwieten, T.: Overview of Nonlinear Propellant Slosh Damping 

Testing and Analysis. JANNAF 10th Spacecraft Propulsion (SPS) 

Subcommittees, December 9-13, 2019, Tampa, FL.

5. VanZwieten, T.: Nonlinear Damping Results for Bare and Baffled 

Tanks. JANNAF 10th Spacecraft Propulsion (SPS) Subcommittees, 

December 9-13, 2019, Tampa, FL.

6. Hall, R.; Bertaska, I.; Powers, J.: Space Launch System 

Implementation of Nonlinear Slosh Damping Models for Flight 

Control System Design. JANNAF 10th Spacecraft Propulsion (SPS) 

Subcommittees, December 9-13, 2019, Tampa, FL.

7. VanZwieten, T.; Brodnick, J.; Reese, S.; Ruth, M.; Marsell, B.; 

Parks, R.: Nonlinear Slosh Damping Testing and Analysis for Launch 

Vehicle Propellant Tanks. 2020 AIAA SciTech Forum, January 6-10, 

2020, Orlando, FL

8. Dennehy, C.: Codename Corona: America’s First Imaging 

Reconnaissance Satellite. 43rd Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and 

Control Conference, January 30 - February 5, 2020, Breckenridge, 

CO.

9. Orr, J.: Modeling and Simulation of Rotary Sloshing in Launch 

Vehicles. 44th Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control 

Conference, Breckenridge, CO.

Human Factors

1. Novak, B.: Human Systems Integration for Safety-Critical 

Range Operations at Wallops Flight Facility. NASA Human Factors 

Community Webcast, October 8, 2019, Hampton, VA.

2. Null, C.: Why Human Errors are a Good Thing, and the 

Unintended Consequences for Human Factors. BBCSS Fall 2019 

Meeting, November 20, 2019, Washington, DC.

3. Holbrook, J.: Using Worker-Generated Data to Characterize 

Resilient Performance Strategies. Quality and Safety in Children’s 

Health Conference, March 9-11, 2020, Kansas City, MO.

4. Holbrook, J.: A Data-Driven Approach to Recognizing and 

Understanding Human Contributions to Aviation Safety. 73rd Annual 

International Air Safety Summit, Virtual Global Event.

Loads & Dynamics

1. Matt Griebel, M.; Wilson, J.; Johnson, A.; Erickson, B.; Doan, A.; 

Flanigan, C.; Bremner, P.; Sills, J.; Bruno, E.: Orion E-STA Nonlinear 

Dynamic Correlation and Coupled Loads Analysis. 2019 Spacecraft 

and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop. 

2. Doan, A.; Johnson, A.; Griebel, M.; Flanigan, C.; Bremner, P.; 

Sills, J.; Bruno, E.: End-to-End Assessment of Development Flight 

Instrumentation for Vibration Modes Identification on SLS Exploration 

Flight EM-1. 2019 Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic 

Environments Workshop.

3. Kammer, D.; Blelloch, P., Sills, J.: SLS Uncertainty Quantification 

Based on Component Level Modal Tests. 2019 Spacecraft and 

Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop.

4. Majed, A.; Henkel, E., Sills, J.: A Deformed Geometry Coupling 

Technique for Determining Preloads of a Stacked Fueled Launch 

Vehicle. 2019 Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments 

Workshop. 

5. Allen, M.; Schoneman, J.; Scott, W.; Sills, J.: Leveraging QuasiStatic Modal Analysis for Nonlinear Transient Dynamics. 2019 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop. 

6. Allen, M.; Schoneman, J.; Scott, W.; Sills, J.: Application of QuasiStatic Modal Analysis to an Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Test 
 Publications 61

Article. IMAC 38, February 10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

7. Doan, A.; Johnson, A.; Loogman, T.; Bremner, P.; Sills, J.; 

Bruno, E.: End-to-End Assessment of Artemis-1 Development Flight 

Instrumentation, IMAC 38, February 10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

8. Johnson, A.; Griebel, M.; Erickson, B.; Doan, A.; Flanigan, C.; 

Wilson, J.; Bremner, P.; Sills, J.; Bruno, E.: Orion E-STA Nonlinear 

Dynamic Correlation and Coupled Loads Analysis, IMAC 38, February 

10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

9. Kammer, D.; Blelloch, P.; Sills, J.: Variational Coupled Loads 

Analysis using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method. IMAC 38, 

February 10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

10. McManamen, J.; Sills, J.: The Artemis Challenge: Another 

Revolution in Structural Dynamics. IMAC 38, February 10-13, 2020, 

Houston, TX.

11. Napolitano, K.: Feasibility Study to Extract Artemis-1 Fixed Base 

Modes While Mounted on a Dynamically Active Mobile Launch 

Platform. IMAC 38, February 10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

12. Sills, J.; Majed, A.; Henkel, E.: A Deformed Geometry Synthesis 

Technique for Determining Stacking and Cryogenically Induced 

Preloads for the Space Launch System. IMAC 38, February 10-13, 

2020, Houston, TX.

13. Akers, J.; Sills, J.: Space Launch System Mobile Launcher Modal 

Pretest Analysis. IMAC 38, February 10-13, 2020, Houston, TX.

14. Johnson, D.; Shaker, J.; Hunt, R.: International Space Station 

(ISS) Cargo Tool Loads Analysis - Independent Verification and 

Validation (IV&V). NASA/TM-2020-5001542/NESC-RP-18-01370, April 

2020

15. Sills, J.: Multidisciplinary Dynamic Testing Challenges in Validating 

the NASA Artemis Architecture. 13th AICE Annual Congress, October 

2020.

16. Sills, J.: Fusion of Test and Analysis: Artemis I Booster to Mobile 

Launcher Interface Validation. IMAC, Orlando, FL.

Materials

1. Glendening, A.; Russell, R.: New Technologies Additive 

Manufacturing: AM from Customer’s Perspective. CQSDI Conference, 

March 9-10, 2020, Cape Canaveral, FL.

2. Russell, R.: NASA’s Philosophy for the Qualification and 

Certification of Additively Manufactured Components, The Aircraft 

Airworthiness and Sustainment Conference, August 26, 2020.

3. Russell, R., Wells, D., West, B.; Glendening, A.: NASA’s Plans 

for the Release of Standards for Additive Manufactured Components, 

JANNAF Additive Manufacturing for Propulsion Applications TIM, 

September 14-17, 2020.

4. Russell, R.; Wells, D.: NASA-STD-6030 Additive Manufacturing 

Requirements for Crewed Spaceflight Systems Foundational 

Principles, ASTM F42.07.02 Spaceflight Applications Subsection, 

September 2020.

5. Kobyashi, T.; Shockey, D.; Wells, D.: Identifying Microstructural 

Features that Control Fracture in Additive Materials. International 

Journal of Fracture, September 2020.

Mechanisms

1. Howard, S.; DellaCorte, C.; Dube, M.: Magnetic Levitation 

for Long-Life Space Mechanisms: Technology Assessment and 

Remaining Challenges. NASA/TM-2019-220052.

2. Dube, M.; Fisher, J.; Loewenthal, S.; Ward, P.: Recovery and 

Operational Best Practices for Reaction Wheel Bearings. 45th 

Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, May 13-15, 2020, Houston, TX.

Passive Thermal

1. Walker, W.; Rickman, S.; Darcy, E.; Darst, J.; Calderon, D.; Brown, 

R.; Hagen, R.; Sauter, A.; Hughes, P.; Bayles, G.; Petrushenko, D.; 

Comick, S.: Status and Preliminary Results for the Large Format 

Fractional Thermal Runaway Calorimeter (L-FTRC), NASA Aerospace 

Battery Workshop, November 21, 2019, Huntsville, AL.

2. Rickman, S.: Small-format Fractional Thermal Runaway 

Calorimetry (S-FTRC), University of Texas, March 2020, El Paso, TX.

3. Rickman, S.: Introduction to Orbital Mechanics and Spacecraft 

Attitudes for Thermal Engineers. NESC Academy presentation, 

TFAWS, August 19, 2020, Hampton, VA.

4. Rickman, S.: Introduction to Orbital Mechanics and Spacecraft 

Attitudes for Thermal Engineers. Virtual Thermal and Fluids Analysis 

Workshop, August 2020.

5. Wehmeyer, G.: Passive Heat Switching Using TemperatureDependent Magnetic Forces. NESC Academy Presentation.

Propulsion

1. Marcum, J.; Gabl, J.; Dorney, D.: Effects of Common Engine 

Variables on MMH/RFNA Combustion Stability. JANNAF Journal 

Manuscripts, Volume 12, Issue 1, November 2019.

2. Marcum, J.; Gabl, J.; Dorney, D.: Effects of Material Composition, 

Condensed Reaction Products, and Temperature on Combustion 

Stability of MMH/NTO Thrusters. JANNAF Journal Manuscripts, 

Volume 12, Issue 1, December 2019.

3. Harrigan, G..; Peralta, S.: Material Compatibility Assessments for 

Spacecraft Oxidizer Systems. JANNAF, September 11, 2020.

4. Gabl, J.; Whitehead, B., Pourpoint, T.: MON-3 Cavitation Model 

Verification Using Pressure Synchronized High-Speed Video. NASA InSpace Chemical Propulsion Technical Interchange Meeting, JANNAF, 

September 29, 2020.

5. Marcum, J.; Manheim, J.; Boulos, V.; Updike, B.; Kenttämaa, 

H.; and Pourpoint, T.: Investigation of the MMH/NTO Reaction 

Mechanism Using Mass Spectrometry and Laser Desorption/

Ionization. 42nd JANNAF PEDCS Meeting, Virtual Event, September 

29, 2020.

6. Coutts, J.; Oropeza, C.; Mullen, C.; Parker, D.; Krewson, D.: 

Identification of Other Carbonaceous Materials and Elemental Content 

in Ketazine-Derived High Purity Hydrazine. JANNAF, October 1, 2020.

Science

1. Valinia, A.; Dube, M.; Iannello, C.; Jackson, G.; Kirsch, M.; 

Pellerano, F.; Squire, M.; Wilson, T.: The Role of NASA Engineering 

and Safety Center (NESC) in Advancing NASA’s Earth Science 

Missions (Past, Present, and Future). SPIE Digital Library Remote 

Sensing 2020 Conference (Online Forum), Proc. SPIE 11530, 

Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XXIV, 115300N, 

September 20, 2020.

Sensors & Instrumentation

1. Singh, U.: Active Optical Remote Sensing Vision and Strategy 

for NASA’s Future Earth and Space Science Missions. International 

Radiation Symposium (IRS 2020), July 6-10, 2020, Thessaloniki, 

Greece.
2. Singh, U.; Horan, S.: Proceedings of the NASA Technical 

Interchange Meeting on Active Optical Systems for Supporting 

Science, Exploration, and Aeronautics Measurements Needs. NASA/

CP-2019-220422, L-21082, NF1676L-35025, Columbia, MD.

Systems Engineering

1. Holladay, J.; Knizhnik, J.; Weiland, K.; Grondin, T.; JonesMcDowall, K.: Realized Benefits from the Model-Based Systems 

Engineering Infusion and Modernization Initiative, 63rd Japan 

Federation of Space Science and Technology, November 6-8, 2019, 

Tokushima, Japan.

2. Johnson, K.: Applying NASA-STD-7009 Standard for Models and 

Simulations to Surrogate and Other Statistical Models. JANNAF 10th 

Spacecraft Propulsion Subcommittees, December 9-13, 2019, Tampa, 

FL.

3. Knizhnik, J.; Weiland, K.; Grondin, T.; Holladay, J.: NASA MBSE 

Update. NASA/JAXA MBSE TIM, February 18, 2020, Greenbelt, MD.

4. Holladay, J.: NASA MBSE Overview, Approach, Culture and 

Reality. 2020 ASQ Collaboration on Quality in the Space and Defense 

Industries, Digital Transformation Panel, March 9, 2020.

5. Knizhnik, J.; Jones-McDowall, K.; Weiland, K.; Holladay, J.; 

Grondin, T.: An Exploration of Lessons Learned from NASA’s MBSE 

Infusion and Modernization Initiative (MIAMI). 2020 NIST MBE 

Summit, Mar 30 – Apr 4, 2020, Gaithersburg, MD.

6. Barth, T.; Lilley, S.: Recurring Causes of Human Spaceflight 

Mishaps During Flight Tests and Early Operations. NESC Academy 

Presentation, May 14, 2020.

7. Knizhnik, J. Weiland K., Holladay, J.: Status to DoD on NASA 

MBSE Activities. Department of Defense, Benchmark of NASA Efforts 

in Digital Transformation, May 2020.

8. Knizhnik, J.; Holladay, J.; Pawlikowski, G.: Independent 

Assessment of Perception from External/non-NASA Systems 

Engineering (SE) Sources. Systems Engineering State of the 

Discipline, NASA Academy webinar, July 20, 2020.

9. Holladay, J.: What Makes an Outstanding SE - Harder Than You 

Think, It’s a Beautiful Thing. NASA Systems Engineering Workshop, 

Virtual, September 22, 2020.

10. Infeld, S.: An Innovative Jump Start for MBSE Tooling. Virtual.

11. Knizhnik, J.: Systems Engineering and Model Based Systems 

Engineering Stakeholder State of the Discipline. NESC Webinar.

12. Knizhnik, J.: Suggested MBSE Implementation Plan Approaches. 

Virtual

Space Environments

1. Bruzzone, J.; Janches, D.; Jenniskens, P.; Weryk, R.; 

Hormaechea, J.: A Comparative Study of Radar and Optical 

Observations of Meteor Showers Using SAAMER-OS and 

CAMS. Planetary and Space Science, vol. 188, doi: 10.1016/j.

pss.2020.104936, 2020.

2. Coffey, V.; Sazykin, S.; Minow, J.; Newheart, A.; Chandler, M.; 

Willis, E.: ISS FPMU Observations of Ionospheric Plasma Variability. 

Abstract SA44A-13, 2019 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union, 

December 9 – 13, 2019, San Francisco, CA.

3. Janches, D.; Brunini, C.; Hormaechea, J.: A Decade of Sporadic 

Meteoroid Mass Distribution Indices in the Southern Hemisphere 

Derived from SAAMER’s Meteor Observations. The Astronomical 

Journal, vol. 157(6): 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b0f, 2019.

4. Janches, D.; Bruzzone, J.; Hormaechea, J.; Weryk, R.; Gural, P.; 

Matney, M.; Minow, J.; Cooke, W.; Robinson, R.: A Status Update on 

the Southern Hemisphere Meteoroid Measurements. 1st International 

Orbital Debris Conference, December 9-12, 2019, Sugarland, TX.

5. Janches, D.; Bruzzone, J.; Weryk, R.; Hormaechea, J.; Wiegert, 

P.; Brunini, C.: Observations of an Unexpected Meteor Shower 

Outburst at High Ecliptic Southern Latitude and its Potential Origin. 

The Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol. 895(1), L25: doi: 10.3847/2041-

8213/ab9181, 2020.

6. Jenniskens, P.; Jopek, T.; Janches, D.; Hajdukova, M.; Kokhirova, 

G.; Rudawska, R.: On Removing Showers from the IAU Working 

List of Meteor Showers. Planetary and Space Science 104821, doi: 

10.1016/j.pss.2019.104821, 2019.

7. Lundgreen, P.: Electron Emission and Transport Properties 

Database for Spacecraft Charging Models. MS Thesis, Utah State 

University, August 2020, Logan, UT.

8. Lundgreen, P.; Dennison, J.: Strategies for Determining Electron 

Yield Material Parameters for Spacecraft Charge Modeling. Space 

Weather Journal, vol. 19(4), doi: 10.1029/2019SW002346, 2020.

9. Lundgreen, P.; Dennison, J.: Quantifying Materials Surface 

Conditions through Secondary Electron Yield Measurements, 

American Physical Society Four Corners Meeting, Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University, October 11-12, 2019, Prescott, AZ.

10. Minow, J.: NESC Space Environment Activities. 11th NASA Space 

Exploration and Space Weather Workshop, October 17, 2019, GSFC, 

Greenbelt, MD.

11. Minow, J.; Zheng, Y.; Rastaetter, L.: Real-Time Internal Charging 

Model for Geostationary Orbit. Abstract SM31C-3546, 2019 Fall 

Meeting, American Geophysical Union, December 9-13, 2019, San 

Francisco, CA (invited).

12. Taylor, T.; Lundgreen, P.; Dennison, J.: Secondary Electron Yield 

Analysis of Contamination Found on Long Duration Exposure Facility 

Panels. Utah State University Student Research Symposium, April 9, 

2020, Logan, UT.

13. Yang, T.; Park, J.; Kwak, Y.; Oyama, K.; Minow, J.: Characteristics 

of Equatorial Morning Overshoot Observed by the Swarm 

Constellation. Abstract SA51B-3139, 2019 Fall Meeting, American 

Geophysical Union, December 9-13, 2019, San Francisco, CA.

14. Yang, T.; Park, J.; Kwak, Y.; Oyama, K.; Minow, J.; Lee, J.: 

Morning Overshoot of Electron Temperature as Observed by the 

Swarm Constellation and the International Space Station, Journal of 

Geophysical Research, vol. 125, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027299, 2019.

15. Zheng, Y.; Ganushkina, N.; Jiggens, P.; Jun, I.; Meier, M.; Minow, 

J.; O’Brien, T.; Pitchford, D.; Shprits, Y.; Tobiska, W.; Xapsos, M.; 

Guild, T.; Mazur, J.; Kuznetsova, M.: Space Radiation and Plasma 

Effects on Satellites and Aviation: Quantities and Metrics for Tracking 

Performance of Space Weather Environment Models. Space Weather, 

vol. 17, doi: 10.1029/2018SW002042, 2019, pp 1384-1403.

16. Zheng, Y.; Ganushkina, N.; Rastaetter, L.; Fok, M.; Jordanova, 

V.; Kellerman, A.; Morley, S.; Shprits, Y.; Li, X.; Horne, R.; Minow, J.; 

Kuznetsova, M.; and Modelers of the Near-Earth Space: Scoreboard of 

the Inner Magnetosphere Charging Environment: Realtime Validation 

of an Ensemble of Community Models. Abstract SM31C-3179, 2019 

Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union, December 9-13, 2019, 

San Francisco, CA.

Structures

1. Dawicke, D.: Recent DIC Activities at NASA Langley Research 

Center. International Digital Image Correlation Society (iDICS) 2019 

Conference and Workshop, October 14-17, Portland, OR.

Based on Publications NESC Activities

62 Publications
NASA Technical Memorandums

1. Mobile-Launcher-Only Modal Survey Test Support.

NASA/CR-2019-220415

2. Recurring Causes of Human Spaceflight Mishaps during Flight 

Tests and Early Operations. NASA/TM-2020-220573

3. Aerospace Valve Industrial Base and Acquisition Practices 

Assessment. NASA/TM-2020-220577

4. NESC Peer Review of the Space Launch System (SLS), 

Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), and Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle (MPCV) Programs’ Modal test, Development Flight 

Instrumentation (DFI), and Dynamic Model Correlation Plans; MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle. NASA/TM-2019-220414

5. Mobile Launcher (ML) Independent Model Verification.

NASA/ TM-2019-220418

6. Large Male Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Finite Element 

Model (FEM) Correlation Improvement. 

NASA/TM-2019-220412

7. Application of System Identification to Parachute Modeling.

NASA/ TM-2019-220410/Volume I

8. Application of System Identification to Parachute Modeling.

NASA/ TM-2019-220410/Volume II

9. Human Systems Integration (HSI) for Safety-Critical Range 

Operations at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). 

NASA/TM-2019-220411

10. Space Launch System (SLS) Service Module (SM) Panel 

Separation Clearance: Block 1 Vehicle Analysis Cycle 1 (VAC-1) 

Update. NASA/TM-2018-220107/Revision 1

11. Proceedings of the NASA Technical Interchange Meeting on 

Active Optical Systems for Supporting Science, Exploration, and 

Aeronautics Measurements Needs. NASA/CP-2019-220422

12. International Space Station (ISS) Remote Power Controller 

Module (RPCM) Hot Mate/Demate During Extravehicular Activity 

(EVA). NASA/TM-2019-220421/Volume I

13. International Space Station (ISS) Remote Power Controller 

Module (RPCM) Hot Mate/Demate During Extravehicular Activity 

(EVA) Appendices. NASA/TM-2019-220421/Volume II

14. Operational Considerations for Space Fission Power and 

Propulsion Platforms. NASA/CR-2020-220569

15. Space Launch System (SLS) Liftoff Clearance: Artemis-2 

Mission Analysis Cycle 1 (MAC-1). NASA/TM-2020-5000780

16. NESC CPVWG Guidelines for Determination of Stress Ratio. 

NASA/TM-2020-5000785

17. Space Launch System (SLS) Program Block I Booster Element 

Alternate Insulation Risk Reduction. 

NASA/TM-2020-5000828/Volume I

18. Space Weather Architecture. NASA/TM-2020-5000837

19. Space Launch System (SLS) Artemis II Mission Analysis 

Cycle 1 (MAC-1) 10100 Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Separation 

Assessment. NASA/TM-2020-5000784

20. Guidance for Human Error Analysis. NASA/TM-2020-5001486

21. Parker Ethylene Propylene Rubber (EPR) E0515 O-Ring 

Material Obsolescence. NASA/TM-2020-5001493

22. ISS Cargo Tool Loads Analysis - Independent Verification and 

Validation. NASA/TM-2020-5001542

23. Liftoff Modeling and Simulation of T0 Umbilicals for Space 

Launch System. NASA/TM-2020-5001550

24. COPV Liner Inspection Capability Development Assessment.

NASA/TM-2020-5002461

25. NASA’s Flying Qualities Research Contributions to

MIL-STD-1797C. NASA/CR-2020-5002350

26. Accelerance Decoupling (AD) Method. 

NASA/TM-2020-5002479

27. Characterization of Thick Section Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) 2195 

Natural Aging for use on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program. 

NASA/TM-2020-5002526

28. Review of Orbital Debris Engineering Model Version 3.1 

(ORDEM3.1). NASA/TM-2020-5002558

29. Determination of Autoignition Temperature for Isopropyl Alcohol 

and Ethanol. NASA/TM-2020-5004683

30. Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Separation Clearance: 

Block 1 Vehicle Analysis Cycle 1R (VAC-1R).

NASA/TM-2020-5006145

31. Support Mars 2020 Heat Shield Structural Failure Review.

NASA/TM-2020-5006139

32. Assessment of Spacecraft Passivation Techniques.

NASA/TM-2020-5001631

33. COPV Life Prediction Analysis Methodology and Damage 

Tolerance Life Test Best Practices.

NASA/TM-2020-5006765/Volume I

34. COPV Life Prediction Analysis Methodology and Damage 

Tolerance Life Test Best Practices.

NASA/TM-2020-5006765/Volume II

35. Independent Assessment of the Technical Maturity of Nuclear 

Electric Propulsion (NEP) and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) 

Systems. NASA/TM-2020-5006807

36. A Review of In-Space Propellant Transfer Capabilities and 

Challenges for Missions Involving Propellant Resupply.

NASA/TM-2020-5007997

37. Flexible Multibody Dynamics of Space Vehicles.

NASA/TM-2020-5008164

Papers and presentations as of October 2020

 Publications 63
AA

ABSL

ACCP

AD2

AFRC

AFRL

AIAA

AIT

Al-Li

AM

ANSI

ARC

ARTEMIS

ASME

ATK

BON

CAA

CAD

CADRe

CARA

CCP

CDRA

CFD

CLA

CLPS

CM

COG

CoP

COPV

COTS

CS

CSFSU

CSITU

CVN-78

D&C

DARPA

DART

DARTS

DCR

DFI

DGS

DIC

DoD

DTA

EAC

EC

ECLSS

EDL

EEE

EFT

EGS

ELC

EMU

EPC

ESA

ESD

ESM

EVA

ExMC

ExPRESS

FEM

FPMU

FTS

GG

GGFV

GGOV

GNC

GOES-R

GRC

GSFC

H2

HALO

HCFC

HEA

HDBK

HM

HP

HPH

IC

ICON

ICPS

ICPSU

IOP

IPA

ISRO

ISS

JPL

JSC

KSC

L2

LaRC

LC

LDI

LEFM

LEO

LH2

Li-ion

LISA

LLIS

LO2

LSP

LV

MBSE

MCC

M-COG

MDP

MFV

MIAMI

MIL

MIMU

ML

MLG

MMH

MMOD

MON-3

MOV

MOWG

MPa

MPCV

MPVS

MS

MS

MSFC

MTSO

N2O

NAFTU

NASA

NASCAP

NASTRAN

NCE

NDE

NDSB2

NEP

NESC

NIO

NIST

NOAA

NOVICE

NRB

NPR

NSC

NTO

NTP

OCFO

OFT

ORDEM

OSAM-1

OSMU

OTBV

PAMELA

PBA

PE

PE

PF

POD

PRF

RefProp

RDBE

RFI

RP

RPCM

RPO

S&MA

SBKF

SE

SE&I

SET

SLS

SM

SME

SOFIA

SOW

SRB

ST-7

STD

STMD

STS

SysML

TDT

TEA-TEB

TF

TFAWS

THEMIS

Ti-NTO

TM

T0

TPS

TR

TRADES

TRL

TSMU

μl

μm

USAID

VAB

VITAL

VSP

VSS

WFF

WIO

WSTF

Acronyms

Ascent Abort

ABSL Power Solutions

Aerosols and Cloud-Convection Precipitation 

Advancement Degree of Difficulty

Armstrong Flight Research Center

Air Force Research Laboratory

American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics

Autogenous Ignition Temperature

Aluminum-Lithium

Additive Manufacturing

American National Standards Institute

Ames Research Center

Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and 

Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction 

with the Sun

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Alliant Techsystems

Badhwar-O’Neill

Crew Access Arm

Computer-Aided Design

Cost Analysis Data Requirements

Conjunction Assessment & Risk Analysis

Commercial Crew Program

Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Coupled Loads Analysis

Commercial Lunar Payload Services

Crew Module

Ceramic Oxygen Generator

Community of Practice

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel

Commerical off the Shelf

Core Stage

Core Stage Forward Skirt Umbilical

Core Stage Intertank Umbilical

USS Gerald R. Ford

Design and Construction

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Double Asteroid Redirection Test 

Dynamics And Real-Time Simulation

Design Certification Review

Development Flight Instrumentation

Deformed Geometry Synthesis

Digital Image Correlation

Department of Defense

Debris Transport Analysis

Environmentally Assisted Cracking

Eddy Current

Environmental Control & Life Support System

Entry, Descent, and Landing

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical

Exploration Flight Test

Exploration Ground Systems

ExPRESS Logisitcs Carrier

Extravehicular Mobility Unit

Error-Producing-Conditions

European Space Agency

Exploration Systems Development

Entry Systems Modeling

Extravehicular Activity

Exploration Medical Capability

Expedite the Processing of Experiments

to the Space Station

Finite Element Model

Floating Potential Measurement Unit 

Flight Termination System

Gas Generator

Gas Generator Fuel Valve

Gas Generator Oxidizer Valve

Guidance, Navigation, & Control

Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite-R

Glenn Research Center

Goddard Space Flight Center

Hydrogen Monohydride

Habitation and Logistics Outpost

Hydrochlorofluorocarbon

Human Error Analysis

Handbook

Henkel-Mar

High Purity

High Purity Hydrazine

Initial Condition

Ionospheric Connection Explorer

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage Umbilical

Ignition Overpressure

Isopropyl Alcohol

Indian Space Research Organisation

International Space Station

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Johnson Space Center

Kennedy Space Center

Lagrange Point 2

Langley Research Center

Launch Complex

Laser Desorption/Ionization

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Low Earth Orbit

Liquid Hydrogen

Lithium Ion

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

Lessons Learned Information System

Liquid Oxygen

Launch Services Program

Launch Vehicle

Model Based Systems Engineering

Main Combustion Chamber

Medical Ceramic Oxygen Generator

Maximum Design Pressure

Main Fuel Valve

MBSE Infusion and Modernization Initiative

Military

Miniature Inertial Measurement Unit 

Mobile Launcher

Main Landing Gear

Monomethylhydrazine

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris

Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen 

Main Oxidizer Valve

Mission Operations Working Group

Megapascals

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

Multipurpose Pressure Vessel Scanner

Mass Spectrometry

Meteoroid Shield

Marshall Space Flight Center

Management and Technical Support Office

Nitrous Oxide

NASA Automated Flight Termination System

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA/Air Force Spacecraft Charging 

Analyzer Program

NASA Structural Analysis

NESC Chief Engineer

Nondestructive Evaluation

NASA Docking System Block 2

Nuclear Electric Propulsion

NASA Engineering and Safety Center

NESC Integration Office

National Institute for Standards and Technology

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

A software suite for space systems radiation 

effects

NESC Review Board

NASA Procedural Requirement

NASA Safety Center

Dinitrogen Tetroxide

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Orbital Flight Test

Orbital Debris Engineering Model

On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and 

Manufacturing-1

Orion Service Module Umbilical

Oxidizer Turbine Bypass Valve

Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration

and Light-nuclei Astrophysics 

Pilot Breathing Assessment

Principal Engineer

Physiological Episodes

Performance Fluid

Probability of Detection

Performance

Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and 

Transport Properties Database

Ring Double Bond Equivalents

Request for Information

Rocket Propellant

Remote Power Control Modules

Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

Safety and Mission Assurance

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor

Systems Engineering

Systems Engineering and Integration

Systems Engineering Team

Space Launch System

Service Module

Subject Matter Expert

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 

Astronomy

Statement of Work

Solid Rocket Booster

Space Technology 7

Standard

Space Technology Mission Directorate

Space Transportation System

Systems Modeling Language

Technical Discipline Team

Triethylaluminum-Triethylborane

Technical Fellow

Thermal Fluids Analysis Workshop

Time History of Events and Macroscale 

Interactions during Substorms

Titanium Nitrogen Tetroxide

Technical Memorandum

Liftoff Time

Thermal Protection System

Thermal Runaway

TRAnsformative DESign

Technical Readiness Level

Tail Service Mast Umbilical

Microliter

Micrometer

United States Agency for International 

Development

Vehicle Assembly Building

Ventilator Intervention Technology

Accessible Locally

Vehicle Support Posts

Vehicle Stabilizer System

Wallops Flight Facility

Wind-Induced Isolation

White Sands Test Facility

64 Acronyms

For general questions and requests

for technical assistance, visit

NESC.NASA.GOV

To submit a technical request

anonymously, mail it to:

NESC

NASA Langley Research Center

Mail Stop 118

Hampton, VA 23681

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

NP-2020-10-081-LaRC

ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE