www.nasa.gov

NESC

2009 TECHNICAL UPDATE

NASA ENGINEERING & SAFETY CENTER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Stakeholder Messages ................................... 2

Leadership Message ...................................... 3 

NESC Overview .............................................. 4

Technical Highlights ........................................ 9

 Exploration ................................................... 10

 General ........................................................ 21

 Space Operations ........................................ 31

 Science ....................................................... 36

Center Focus ................................................. 38

Honor Awards ................................................ 50

Biographies .................................................... 52

Alumni ............................................................ 56

Publications .................................................... 57

(Left) Ares I-X in the Vehicle Assembly Building during stacking. 

On the cover: Launch of the Max Launch Abort System Flight Test Vehicle 

from Wallops Flight Facility. Inset photos: top, Shell Buckling Test Facility at 

MSFC; middle, Composite Crew Module at ATK facilities in Iuka, Mississippi; bottom, Finite Element Models of Anthropomorphic Test Devices.

Back cover: MLAS crew module descends under fully deployed main parachutes. Photo by Ryan Henriksen/The Virginian-Pilot.

All photos in this publication are credited to NASA except where indicated.

CONTENTS
4

STAKEHOLDER MESSAGES

I

t is reassuring to me to know that the Agency has an independent, technically competent and 

reliable resource in the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). I have already seen how 

engaged they have been in many different arenas. The NESC is always there to ensure the tough 

questions are asked and to help find the answers. The success of the Max Launch Abort System 

flight demonstration test this summer was a tremendous example of the best NASA has to offer. 

As the Agency moves forward, I am glad that there is a resource available to all of NASA to help 

address the technical challenges we are sure to face.

Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator

The NESC has continued to serve the Agency this year by engaging top-notch experts to

address the most challenging technical issues we have faced. The NESC is there to respond 

to real-time problems in our operational programs, to provide alternative solutions to our design

efforts and to provide leadership for our technical disciplines. This year, with the successful flight 

test of the Max Launch Abort System, the NESC vividly demonstrated the power of bringing

together engineers, scientists, researchers and technicians from across the Agency. By enabling collaboration and teamwork across the Centers and with industry, great things can be accomplished.

Christopher J. Scolese, NASA Associate Administrator

The NESC is a strong technical resource for the benefit of the Agency. Always willing to take 

on new challenges and tackle the toughest engineering challenges, the NESC stands ready at 

a moment’s notice. No matter what the program, project or institution, the NESC can be counted 

on to jump in to help solve any technical issue – with the goal of making NASA successful. This 

year we have selected additional NASA Technical Fellows to provide the Agency’s technical leadership for our engineering disciplines. In this capacity, they respond to the needs of programs and

projects, while looking forward to address discipline issues for the future. The NESC also provides a rich training ground for younger engineers through their engagement on assessments and 

through the Resident Engineer Program. The NESC sets an example in the Agency for engineering 

excellence, collaboration and a can-do attitude.

Michael G. Ryschkewitsch, NASA Chief Engineer

The NESC continues to support my office as well as the Chief Engineers Office at our joint Safety 

and Mission Success Reviews by providing timely and accurate independent assessments of 

our toughest and most important mission safety and mission success problems. I continue to be 

impressed by the depth and ability of the NESC team and the ability of the NESC to assemble the 

best and brightest from both within and outside the Agency to focus on these problems. 

I am equally impressed with their efforts at developing and maintaining the Agency’s engineering 

competencies through hands-on efforts, with both the Max Launch Abort System, a launch integration project which launched successfully from Wallops Flight Facility in July and their work with 

the Composite Crew Module, an in-house fabrication project. 

In this their 6th year, the NESC continues to be a dominant force and a role model in supporting 

and cultivating both the engineering excellence and mission success of the Agency.

Bryan D. O’Connor, NASA Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer
5

LEADERSHIP MESSAGE

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) 

celebrated many accomplishments this year. Most 

notable was the very successful pad abort demonstration test of the Max Launch Abort System from Wallops Flight Facility in July. In addition, the Composite 

Crew Module completed manufacturing and was delivered to the Langley Research Center in September 

for full-scale structural testing. These achievements 

provided concrete examples of how Agency-wide, 

diverse, multi-generation teams enable robust, timely 

and innovative solutions to NASA’s tough technical 

problems. The NESC remains focused on providing 

real-time problem solving for the Space Shuttle and 

International Space Station Programs, with particular attention to the Space Shuttle as it safely flies out 

its remaining missions. We also continued to actively 

support numerous critical robotic spacecraft missions, 

including the Mars Science Laboratory and the James 

Webb Space Telescope.

The NESC expanded the NASA Technical Fellows program this year to include Passive Thermal and Electrical Power disciplines. In addition, we are partnering 

with the newly established Technical Fellows within 

the NASA Safety Center and expanding collaboration 

across the Agency. This year we also increased our 

efforts to share lessons learned from our technical assessments and advocated for the benefits of broadbased, multi-disciplinary teams and value-added independent assessments. This publication highlights 

many of those lessons as well as the contributions 

of hundreds of experts from across the Agency. This 

allowed the NESC to successfully provide the engineering data and recommendations needed for NASA 

Centers and Mission Directorates to make informed 

decisions. 

As the Agency moves into a new decade and the next 

era of space exploration, the NESC stands ready as 

a value-added independent technical resource ensuring engineering excellence and mission success. The 

NESC consistently demonstrated the ability to reach 

across NASA, industry, academia and other government agencies to rapidly respond and address the 

most critical technical issues the Agency faces. The 

broad-based, diverse teams the NESC forms have 

truly been our most valuable and powerful asset. We 

are pleased to highlight some of the most significant 

contributions from these teams in this year’s NESC 

Technical Update. 

(Left to right) Timmy R. Wilson, Deputy Director; Ralph R. Roe, Jr., Director; Dawn M. Schaible, Manager of the Systems 

Engineering Office; Daniel J. Tenney, Manager of the Management and Technical Support Office; and Michael P. Blythe, 

Deputy Director for Safety.
6

NESC OVERVIEW NESC OVERVIEW

NASA has the people and resources to explore the universe 

and redefine the limits of science and technology, but one 

of the systematic challenges has been how to maximize its 

resources by distributing knowledge and experience across 

the breadth of the Agency. One of the achievements of the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is its success in 

promoting intercenter cooperation to surmount the toughest 

and most pressing obstacles that the Agency encounters.

The NESC was formed in 2003 with a charter to ensure safety and mission success by performing independent testing, 

analysis, and assessments of 

NASA’s high-risk projects. To 

accomplish this, the tiger team 

approach is used by forming 

dedicated teams (called assessment teams) to target specific 

technical problems. The members of assessment teams are 

drawn from all across NASA, and 

also from industry, academia, 

and other government agencies. This gives the assessment 

teams an unmatched depth 

of expertise. Another strength 

of the NESC is the diversity achieved by bringing together 

people from different disciplines, locations, and experience 

bases to collaborate and develop solid technical solutions.

A unique feature of the NESC is that more than half of the 

people working for the NESC are in temporary positions. After their temporary assignments are completed, they return 

to their Centers and programs and apply their NESC experience, thereby allowing others to have the same NESC opportunity. The NESC organization is divided into six offices: 

NASA Technical Fellows, NESC Chief Engineers, Systems 

Engineering, Principal Engineers, 

Management and Technical Support, and the Director’s Office. 

NASA Technical Fellows

The NASA Technical Fellows are 

NASA’s senior technical experts 

in 15 engineering disciplines. 

They are the problem-solving 

leaders of Technical Discipline 

Teams (TDTs), which are composed of the technical specialists, from inside and outside 

of NASA, for their respective 

The NESC Review Board (NRB) holds weekly video conferences to peer review and approve all NESC technical assessments and reports.

All technical decisions made by the NESC are products of the NRB.

Building on a Culture of Engineering Excellence 

• Aerosciences*

• Avionics

• Electrical Power

• Flight Mechanics

• Guidance, Navigation and

 Control*

• Human Factors

• Life Support/Active Thermal

• Loads and Dynamics*

• Materials

• Mechanical Systems

• Nondestructive Evaluation*

• Passive Thermal*

• Propulsion

• Software

• Structures*

 *Community of Practice Available

NASA Technical Fellow Disciplines
7

NESC OVERVIEW STAKEHOLDER MESSAGE NESC OVERVIEW

disciplines. TDT members are called on to support assessment teams and help address issues being investigated by 

the NESC. The NASA Technical Fellows are also the stewards 

of their discipline and as such they identify technical challenge areas, review and prioritize engineering standards, educate the Agency through workshops and conferences, and 

oversee online Communities of Practice. Another responsibility of the NASA Technical Fellows is to periodically produce 

a state-of-the-discipline review for NASA’s engineering and 

safety communities.

NESC Chief Engineers (NCEs)

The NESC Chief Engineers are the primary NESC points of 

contact at each Center. The NCEs’ proximity ensures that 

they can closely track the projects that are active at their Centers. They also help to coordinate the facilities and resources 

of each Center as required to support NESC assessments 

and activities.

Principal Engineers Office (PEO)

The Principal Engineers Office carries the primary responsibility for the performance of technical assessments. The 

principal engineers and back-up principal engineers lead assessment teams and provide guidance and assistance for assessments led by individuals from outside of the NESC.

Systems Engineering Office (SEO)

The Systems Engineering Office provides systems engineering and integration for NESC assessments and other activities. The SEO and the SEO-led Systems Engineering TDT also 

provide technical expertise in systems engineering processes 

such as systems analysis, statistics, data mining and trending, and requirements analysis. In addition, the SEO provides 

the technical integration for the NESC’s internal operations, 

including processing all requests for NESC support. These 

requests can come from anyone within or external to NASA. 

Management and Technical Support Office (MTSO)

The Management and Technical Support Office is the business office of the NESC and performs the necessary work 

for contracting and maintaining partnerships. This past year, 

the NESC has worked with over 100 companies or individual 

consultants, with the companies ranging in size from major 

corporations down to small consulting firms. In addition, several universities and academic institutions such as the Missouri University of Science and Technology, The University of 

Alabama, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and government agencies like the Naval Research Laboratory, National 

Aeronautics Exploration Space Operations General Science

Yearly totals 4 54 46 53 47

Aeronautics Exploration Space Operations General Science

Yearly totals 4 54 46 56

56

63

63

53 47

Safety & Mission

Assurance at Centers 4%

Program

NESC 26% Management 16%

Engineering

& Scientific

Organization

41%

Source of Accepted Requests: 323 Total

Anonymous 1% 

Other NASA Offices .5%

Office of Chief

Engineer 2.5%

Center

Management 2%

Office of Safety and

Mission Assurance 3%

External

to Agency 4%

2009 Technical Discipline Team Composition

All statistics as of Oct. 20, 2009

Continued on next page

Industry 21%

Other U.S.

Gov. 3%

Other 1%

University 4%

NASA 71%

Source of Accepted Requests by Mission Directorate: 323 Total
8

NESC OVERVIEW

NASA Technical Fellows Give State-of-theDiscipline Presentations

NASA Technical Fellow for Life Support/Active Thermal, Henry 

(Hank) Rotter (left) discusses Apollo life support systems with Apollo 

11 Commander Neil Armstrong. Mr. Rotter is the NASA architect for 

the life support system in the new lunar lander, Altair.

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and Sandia 

National Laboratories have contributed to NESC activities. 

Many of the experts from these sources are members of TDTs, 

while others were brought in for individual assessments. 

Office of the Director

The top tier of leadership for the NESC is the Office of the 

Director, which includes the NESC Director, Deputy Director, 

Deputy Director for Safety, Chief Scientist, and a representative from the astronaut corps detailed to the NESC as the 

NESC Chief Astronaut. The Office of the Director also chairs 

the NESC Review Board (NRB). All decisions made by the 

NESC are products of the NRB, with each member having 

equal representation and bringing his or her background to 

the decision-making process. The voting members of the 

NRB are the NESC Director and Deputies, NASA Technical 

Fellows, NCEs, Principal Engineers, the Chief Scientist and 

Chief Astronaut, and the managers of the SEO and MTSO. 

The success of the NRB, like that of the entire NESC, is a 

result of its broad diversity combined with outstanding technical competence.

A NASA-Wide Resource

Beyond leading Agency-wide teams and assessments, the 

NESC serves as a centralized source of diverse technical expertise for activities such as technical review boards, mishap 

investigations, and real-time mission support. It has also instituted the Resident Engineer Program, where early-career 

engineers are detailed to the NESC for 1 year to give them 

the opportunity to gain first-hand experience working with 

NESC technical experts and leaders. This benefits the NESC 

as well as the residents because it forges connections to the 

younger generation and gives fresh perspectives on technical 

activities.

By combining a concentration of technical expertise and 

leadership with a structure that facilitates interaction between 

Centers and programs, the NESC can deliver the best of 

NASA to where it can be most effective. For more information 

on the NESC, or to submit a request, visit the NESC website, 

e-mail the NESC, or contact your Center NCE.

Continued from previous page...

The NASA Technical Fellows perform state-of-the-discipline 

(SoD) assessments of their respective engineering disciplines. In their SoD assessments, the NASA Technical Fellows highlight successes, trends, challenges, and other 

issues facing their individual disciplines and provide a roadmap for improvement. These SoD summary reports are presented to the NASA Chief Engineer, the Center engineering 

directors, and the NASA Chief Safety and Mission Assurance 

Officer. The NASA Technical Fellows have a common threepoint focus for performing these assessments of NASA’s 

internal engineering capabilities. They first look across the 

Agency to assess their discipline’s readiness to support the 

goals and objectives of each Mission Directorate. Secondly, 

with the support of their TDT, they identify the top three current technical challenges and/or barriers for their discipline. 

Finally, they formulate advocacy recommendations for their 

discipline, which serve as a roadmap to address the identified discipline technical challenges.

Members of the NRB vote on acceptance of an NESC report prior to release.
9

NESC OVERVIEW

“Our Orion/Mars Science Laboratory EDL Workshop demonstrated how the NASA 

Technical Fellows can stimulate technical collaboration between some of NASA’s most 

important projects and across multiple engineering disciplines. We are always looking 

for opportunities to help foster technical collaboration throughout the Agency.”

— NASA Technical Fellows Cornelius Dennehy and Daniel Murri

NASA Technical Fellows Developing Communities of Practice

A Community of Practice (CoP) is a network of individuals who 

are dedicated to, passionate about, and have personal experience in a given engineering discipline. The NASA Technical 

Fellows have developed online communities as part of their 

discipline stewardship charter. The fundamental objectives 

of the CoP sites are to first provide an online environment 

that connects NASA’s engineers to both the experts within 

their particular discipline and the collective body of discipline 

expertise and second, accomplish NASA’s goal of being a 

learning organization. 

Through these online communities, engineers can ask experts 

questions, collaborate on solutions to common problems, 

find standards and references, take part in online discussions, and find contacts at each Center. The NASA Technical Fellows and TDT members determine the structure and 

technical content of their individual sites. The CoPs are part 

of the NASA Engineering Network (NEN) and are accessible 

to anyone with NASA intranet access.

The NASA Technical Fellows also strongly encourage all 

members of each community to contribute their individual 

knowledge, lessons learned, and other discipline expertise to 

the CoP sites. Feedback on the structure, content, features 

and capabilities of each CoP is welcomed and should be directed to the appropriate NASA Technical Fellow.

Dr. Raju named AIAA Engineer-of-the-Year

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju, NASA Technical Fellow 

for Structures, was selected as the recipient 

of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics (AIAA) Hampton Roads Section 

2009 Engineer-of-the-Year Award. Dr. Raju is 

nationally and internationally known for his 

contributions to fracture mechanics, finite 

element analysis, and computational mechanics. Dr. Raju was selected for his outstanding technical 

contribution in fracture mechanics for the investigation of the 

Space Shuttle wing leading edge Reinforced Carbon-Carbon 

spallation root cause.

On the Web

NESC nesc.nasa.gov

E-mail nesc@nasa.gov

NESC Academy www.nescacademy.org

NASA Engineering Network nen.nasa.gov

An NESC-sponsored Entry, Descent, 

and Landing (EDL) workshop in April 

2009 provided an opportunity for the 

Orion and Mars Science Laboratory 

scientists and engineers to exchange 

and compare their EDL design requirements, technical approaches, testing 

strategies, top concerns, and lessons 

learned, as well as to extend their collaboration to other technical areas.
10

NESC OVERVIEW 

NESC Communications and Education

Resident Engineer Program

The newly created NESC Resident Engineer (RE) Program for 

2010 was a direct result of the successful pilot of this approach during the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) Project. Young engineers are selected to join the NESC to gain 

hands-on experience solving the Agency’s toughest challenges. Each RE is assigned to a TDT allowing the RE an 

opportunity to gain first-hand experience with the technical 

experts in their field. They will participate on a multi-Center 

NESC assessment team and work other projects assigned 

by a mentor. The goal is to provide the REs with diverse 

assignments and exposure to multiple sub-disciplines, while 

developing a broader system engineering perspective.

Ultimately, the experience should give the RE a greater understanding of the Agency’s program and projects, an enhanced 

ability to solve complex technical problems, improved leadership skills, and an increased network of technical experts in 

their discipline.

The NESC Academy: Learning From the Past,

Looking to the Future

The NESC Academy was established to help ensure that the 

body of knowledge of retiring NASA scientists and engineers 

remains viable and accessible. The NESC Academy provides 

the forum through which recognized discipline experts can 

teach the critical competencies to the NASA workforce. 

An instructor-led course on Space Propulsion Systems with 

George Hopson and Len Worlund was repeated in April at 

the long-standing Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF) 

Interagency Propulsion Committee meeting.

To date, 10 discipline courses have been delivered and nine 

are available as online courses via the Academy website –

http://www.nescacademy.org. The online courses include:

• Active Thermal Control and Life Support Systems

 by Hank Rotter

• Space Propulsion Systems by George Hopson

• Power and Avionics by Robert Kichak

• Satellite Attitude Control Systems by Neil Dennehy

• Human Factors by Dr. Cynthia Null

• Software as an Engineering Discipline by Michael

 Aguilar

• Materials Durability – Understanding Damage Modes

 by Dr. Robert Piascik 

• Loads and Dynamics by Dr. Curtis Larsen

• Structures/Nondestructive Evaluation by

 Drs. Ivatury Raju and William Prosser

Learning About the NESC Through Our Website

The NESC website is a communications tool that makes information available on the NESC’s current and past activities. 

It has a large collection of technical reports and bulletins and 

information on how to contact the NESC. The information 

highlights include:

NESC Technical Reports: All publicly available NESC engineering reports can be downloaded. 

NESC Technical Bulletins: A one-page bulletin released 

when new engineering data is developed or learned that could 

be broadly applicable to the larger technical community.

Technical Update: An annual summary of the NESC’s technical activities.

NESC News: A newsletter designed to help keep the NASA 

community and public informed of NESC activities. A free 

subscription is available from the NESC website.

Contact Information: NASA engineers can contact the NESC 

either directly or anonymously to request NESC engagement 

in NASA’s technical problems, or contact the NCE at their 

Center to discuss a potential request for NESC assistance. 

The NESC leadership welcomes the new Resident Engineers named for 

2010. They are, from left, Joseph Gasbarre/LaRC, Courtney Flugstad/KSC, 

Christopher Regan/DFRC, and Brandon Florow/JPL.

NESC tech bulletin

www.nasa.gov

Applicability

This information is applicable to those considering the use of 

Li-Ion batteries comprised of cells with PTC and CID internal 

protective devices.

Background

The internal protective devices (PTC and CID) used in the 

most common commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Li-Ion 

cells (cylindrical 18650’s) have been extremely reliable at a 

single-cell level and have resulted in total prevention of the 

cell reaching a hazardous condition. However, test programs 

have indicated that batteries built with cylindrical COTS 

cells in multi-cell configurations (series and/or parallel) have 

experienced thermal runaway under various test conditions. 

Test data analysis indicated that the two major causes for the 

thermal runaway are overvoltage (overcharge) and external 

short conditions. 

In these cases, the internal protective devices were either 

not protecting as expected or were a cause for the hazards 

encountered. PTC ignition above its withstanding (threshold) 

voltage has been shown to cause thermal runaway under

external short conditions in high-voltage battery modules. 

Thermal runaway has also been observed during overcharge 

conditions in high-voltage and high-capacity modules, 

indicating that the CIDs did not protect the cells from 

catastrophic events, as seen in single cells. The NESCsponsored study was conducted to understand the causes for 

the thermal runaway in high-voltage and high-capacity battery 

modules, and to determine the limitations of the cell internal 

protective devices.

Data and Analysis

PTC characteristics and limitations vary with cell manufacturer 

and are rarely provided. This information should be obtained 

by testing prior to considering a battery design for a specific 

application. The cell series voltage should not exceed the PTC 

withstanding voltage. For high-voltage batteries, diodes added 

to a series string of cells can improve their safety under external 

short conditions. The diodes must be carefully matched to 

battery characteristics.

In high-voltage and high-capacity batteries where the CID 

is used as a level of safety control, overcharge tests need to 

be performed to confirm its safe operation. The number of 

cells recommended for use in parallel depends on the charge 

current. The total charge current used to charge a bank (cells in 

parallel) should in no way cause an increase in PTC resistance 

of any single cell. In other words, in the event that all cell 

CIDs but one have opened, the current seen by the remaining 

cell should not cause an increase in PTC resistance. The CID 

voltage tolerance should also be characterized. The charger 

voltage limit should be set so that the difference between the 

voltage limit value and the end-of-charge battery voltage does 

not cause CID arcing. The main causes of failure that prevent 

the CID from proper safing are the charge current (causing 

inadvertent PTC activation), high temperatures (causing 

PTC activation or uncontrollable thermal runaway), and high 

voltages (causing PTC ignition).

References

NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Program Year 1 Report – Part 

1, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Safety, Handling and Qualification 

Guidelines for Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) Batteries, Li-Ion Batteries, 

Maintaining Technical Communications Related to Aerospace 

Batteries (NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop), NESC Document

Number RP-08-75.

This work was led by Judith Jeevarajan, NASA Johnson Space

Center, and Michelle Manzo, NASA Glenn Research Center.

For information contact the NESC at www.nesc.nasa.gov

Limitations of Internal Protective Devices in High-Voltage/HighCapacity Batteries Using Lithium-Ion Cylindrical Commercial Cells 

Cross-Section of a Typical 18650 Cylindrical Li-Ion cell showing the PTC (in 

green) and CID (in white)

Most commercial cylindrical 18650 Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) cells have two internal protective devices: the Positive 

Temperature Coefficient (PTC) and the Current Interrupt Device (CID). The PTC protects the cells under external 

short conditions and the CID protects the cells under overcharge conditions. While proven to be effective at 

the single cell and small-size battery levels, these devices do not always offer protection when used in highvoltage and high-capacity battery designs. 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 09-02

Scored Disk Vent + Top Cover

Crimped 

Can

CID Button

+ Tagmounting Disk

PTC

Gasket 

Seal

CID

NESC tech bulletin

www.nasa.gov

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 09-01

Ram

Initiators

Primer

Chamber

Assembly

(PCA)

Shear Tube

Valve Body

Booster

Applicability

Pyrovalves are used frequently in propulsion systems built by 

NASA and industry.

Background

Four spacecraft propulsion system pyrovalve “no-fire” 

failures were recently investigated by the NESC (NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center). In all four cases, a normallyclosed pyrovalve failed to actuate during tests in which 

simultaneous firing of dual initiators failed to ignite the booster 

charge. In each failure, a common aluminum Y-shaped PCA 

(Y-PCA) manufactured by CONAX was used to mechanically 

accommodate the two initiators and to direct the individual 

output products of each initiator towards the booster charge. 

Booster charge ignition is intended to generate sufficient 

pressure to actuate the pyrovalve.

Findings and Conclusions

The primary finding from this investigation is that dual 

simultaneous firing (< 10 microseconds skew) is not as 

robust as a single firing and should be avoided. When close

sequential firing of the redundant initiator is necessary, the 

NESC recommends the skew time between initiator firings 

should ideally be longer than the flow duration for single 

fire. Thus the NESC recommendation that use of the device 

should be constrained to single fire operation (or dual with 

skew greater than 2 milliseconds) to ensure robustness of 

booster ignition.

The NESC has forwarded this finding, and others related 

to critical PCA parameters and device qualification issues,

to projects using the current design. In addition, the NESC 

contributed to a new stainless steel PCA design activity

initiated by the Mars Science Laboratory project. 

Recommendations outlining other follow-on tasks have been 

communicated to the NASA Pyrotechnic Working Group.

References

CONAX Y-PCA Booster Anomaly Investigation Report, NESC 

Document Number RP-08-111, NASA Technical Memorandum

(TM) Number TM-2008-215548

This work was led by Michael Hagopian, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, and Andreas Dibbern, Kennedy Space Center. 

For information contact the NESC at www.nesc.nasa.gov

Failure of Pyrotechnic Operated Valves with Dual Initiators

Investigation of recent pyrovalve failures reveals timing of redundant initiator firings is crucial for reliable operation 

of pyrovalves. Simultaneous firing, i.e., within a very narrow time frame, was found to be the primary cause of the 

valve failing to operate. Testing of both single and dual initiators revealed important design characteristics affecting 

pyrovalve device performance. They include Primer Chamber Assembly (PCA) geometry and material properties, 

as well as operational effects on combustion product flow, and resulting energy transfer to the booster.

The CONAX PCA design has evolved slowly over time undergoing incremental changes to correct known issues. 

These piecewise changes were verified by limited test, without a full understanding of the overall system impact or 

effect on margins. Adequate system performance margins may be adversely affected in existing or future systems 

incorporating a pyrovalve actuated by simultaneous firing of dual initiators.

A normally closed pyrovalve

Unfired PCA sectioned at midline

2008 TECHNICAL UPDATE

NASA ENGINEERING & SAFETY CENTER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov
Photo/ATK-Steve Jones 11

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

A technician instruments the

Composite Crew Module for testing.
12

EXPLORATION

Composite Crew Module Pressure Vessel Pathfinder Completes Elemental Testing

The Composite Crew 

Module is mounted 

in LaRC’s Combined 

Loads Test System facility, which is used to 

verify large structural 

components by applying combined mechanical, internal pressure 

and thermal loads. 

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: In January 2007, the NASA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate chartered the NESC to design, build, and test a full-scale 

crew module primary structure, using carbon fiber reinforced 

epoxy based composite materials. The overall goal of the 

project was to develop a team from the NASA family with 

hands-on experience in composite design, manufacturing, 

and testing in anticipation that future exploration systems may 

be made of composite materials. The project was planned to 

run concurrent with the Orion Project baseline metallic design 

so that features could be compared and discussed without 

inducing risk to the Constellation Program (CxP). 

NESC Contribution: Led by the NESC, the Composite Crew 

Module (CCM) Project team is a collaborative partnership between NASA and industry, which includes design, manufacturing, tooling, inspection, and testing expertise. Partners include civil servants from nine Centers, the Air Force Research 

Laboratory, and contractors from Alcore, Alliant Techsystems 

(ATK), Bally Ribbon Mills, Collier Corporation, Genesis Engineering, Janicki Industries, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop 

Grumman. The team is organized such that all participants 

conduct in-line work based on their individual expertise and 

irrespective of their company or Center affiliation. The net 

result is an integrated team with civil servant and contractor 

participants distributed within and across each of the project 

disciplines.

The CCM team operates across four time zones, in a virtual 

environment, connecting participants across the country. 

During the design phase, the team constrained the design 

to match interfaces with the then-current Orion crew module including the internal packaging system that utilizes a 

backbone for securing internal components. The team evaluated several design solutions and focused on one that uses 

composite sandwich structure with transitions to composite 

laminate at heavily loaded attachments. A unique feature of 

the composite design is the use of lobes between the webs 

of the backbone structure. This complex shape, enabled by 

composite technologies, places the floor into a membranetype loading condition and provides mass savings for the 

composite design and the adjacent heat shield system. The 

highly loaded and geometrically complex backbone-dome attachment was enabled by three-dimensional woven preform 

technology. By connecting the aft dome to the backbone and 

placing lobes into the floor, a mass savings of approximately 

150 pounds to the overall primary structure design was realized.

The test article is constructed in two major components: upper and lower pressure shells. The two halves are joined in 

a process that does not use an autoclave and enables subsystem packaging of large or complex subsystems, such as 

plumbing and cabling, prior to assembly. Throughout the 

project, independent technical reviews by government and 
13

EXPLORATION

Dr. Sotiris Kellas (LaRC) provides a pre-test briefing at the LaRC Combined Loads Test Facility to 

the CCM test, analysis, and control team prior to a pressure test. (Right) As-built CCM prior to shipment from ATK in Iuka, Mississippi. Photo/ATK-Steve Jones

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

industry structural experts were conducted at key project 

milestones including: conceptual design, preliminary design, 

detailed design, manufacturing plan, and test plan to challenge assumptions and identify potential problems. The team 

conducted building-block testing of critical design and technology areas, which were used to validate critical assumptions, design allowables, and manufacturing approaches for 

the final design. The critical design was completed in January 2008 enabling the fabrication of full-scale manufacturing demonstration units to verify manufacturing processes. 

Manufacturing of the full-scale test articles started in October 

2008 and was completed 10 months later in July 2009. The 

full-scale test article was delivered to LaRC in September 

2009 and testing of critical features started in October 2009. 

The test article was subjected to combined loads of internal pressure and static pull on critical interfaces to design 

limit loads and to ultimate loads to verify how the analysis 

models predicted the response of the structure under load. 

Test instrumentation includes approximately 280 traditional 

strain gauges, 3500 fiber optic strain sensors, four regions of 

full-field strain measurement, 80 acoustic emission sensors, 

and two system health management systems; one from Metis 

Corporation and one from Acellant. Future plans call for inducing damage to critical areas of the design, and repeating 

the tests to limit and ultimate levels and characterizing the 

effects of damage. Eventually, the test article will be tested 

to destruction.

Results: The integrated project team formed by NASA and 

contractor participants was successful by providing a detailed design of the crew module including all computer 

aided design (CAD) and analytical models, manufacturing 

plans with detailed drawings and work instructions, cure and 

inspection specifications, and test plans with detailed test 

procedures and results. The success criteria for the project 

was that preliminary design-level CAD models would predict 

the as-built mass and that analytical models would predict 

the strain levels of the structure under load within 20 percent 

during structural testing. The mass prediction during the preliminary design review was 1441 pounds. The as-built mass 

with 280 strain gauges including approximately 50 pounds of 

wire was within 3.8 percent of the mass predicted during the 

preliminary design review. The recorded strains for each of 

the strain measurement systems fell within 20 percent of the 

predicted values, with most being much closer. Additionally, 

the test article was subjected to ultimate design loads with no 

evidence of detrimental damage. 

Lessons Learned: Throughout the manufacturing phase a 

number of anomalies (unknown unknowns) materialized giving the team an opportunity to evaluate and demonstrate 

the inspectability and repairability of the CCM design. Even 

though the Orion crew module primary structure is an aluminum lithium alloy, other parts of the structure, 40 percent 

by weight, are composite. The lessons learned are directly 

feeding the design of Orion and Ares I and V composite components, as well as the operations planning being developed 

by the CxP.

Design lessons show non-autoclave splices allow concurrent fabrication, assembly, and integration of major structural 

components and subsystems, and provide a lower cost cure 

tooling option. Through the use of complex shapes enabled 

by composites, a membrane-lobed floor, integrated with a 

backbone subsystem packaging feature, offers potential 

weight savings over a comparable metallic design. A honeycomb core, combined with mature secondary attachment 

technology, provides flexibility and robustness in secondary 

attachment locations. As loads and environments change 

with program maturation, inner mold line tooling offers the 

opportunity to optimize or change the design through tailoring of layups or core density. Composite solutions offer opportunity for lower tooling and piece-part numbers resulting 

in a lower drawing count which helps minimize overall lifecycle costs. 
14

EXPLORATION

Flight force measurement strain gauges and wiring harnesses can be seen on the Fermi PAF prior to final mating with the booster and Fermi satellite.

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The standard approach 

over the last 40 years for predicting 

spacecraft response to the launch 

environment has been to measure 

accelerations on the launch vehicle 

and derive a coupled loads analysis (CLA) simulation that matches 

these acceleration levels. While acceleration measurements are easy 

to obtain, they do not directly indicate the loads and stresses that 

a structure will experience during 

launch. The penalties of using only 

acceleration measurements are 

the weak correlation of CLA and 

conservative qualification testing. 

Thus, a need exists to utilize force 

measurements in the CLA process. 

The inclusion of force measurements will greatly benefit all future 

missions and could assist the Orion crew module requirements and

development process.

NESC Contribution: An NESC 

team chose to acquire interface 

force measurements during flight 

from strain gauges on the trussed 

Payload Adaptor Fitting (PAF) of 

the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space 

Telescope spacecraft, now called 

the Fermi Telescope, in such a way 

that forces and moments might be 

derived. The PAF design used on this 

flight was the most suitable test article 

for resolving forces based on strain 

measurements. The NESC approach 

was first demonstrated through both 

static and dynamic ground testing 

and then flown successfully on the 

Fermi mission. Measurement of interface forces during flight provided a 

direct metric for assessing how well 

acceleration-based methods predicted the loads that were generated 

during launch.

Results: Processing of the data 

from the Fermi flight has indicated 

that making force measurements 

on additional flights may result in

improvements in the accuracy of the 

CLA methodology and could provide 

a means for reducing the conservatism in the design tools. However, it 

was difficult to draw definitive conclusions from force data from a single flight since a statistical envelope 

is desired when comparing it to an

analytical methodology. A database 

of additional flight force measurements would be a useful tool for increasing the accuracy of the predictive tools.

Flight Force Measurements to Improve Coupled Loads Analysis Enters Data Analysis Phase

The Fermi satellite stands mated to the Payload Adaptor

Fitting inside the mobile service tower on Launch Pad 17-B

at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. 
15

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS EXPLORATION

Problem: The Orion Project requested the NESC provide assistance in the refinement and verification of the ocean wave 

model, developed by Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., 

used to determine water-landing conditions for the Orion 

crew module (CM). The model is used in conjunction with 

the overall CM landing model to provide a probabilistic model 

for design loads. 

NESC Contribution: Due to the critical 

nature of the wave model and unique 

subject matter, the NESC brought together the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Data 

Buoy Center, Naval Research Laboratory, Army Corp of Engineers, and Scripps 

Institute of Oceanography to provide 

independent perspectives on wave 

modeling. The NESC team outlined 

recommendations on buoy data selection and limitations, the 

statistical treatment of the data, numerical and verification 

methods, and other oceanographic considerations. 

Results: The inclusion of other government agencies outside 

of NASA’s experience base yielded improved solutions and 

valuable domain specific knowledge early in the ocean wave 

model design process for Orion. The team developed a website that can routinely provide real-time wave slope velocity 

and azimuth statistics in the abort and recovery regions. 

Problem: The Ares I-X launch vehicle uses pyrotechnic thruster pressure cartridges (TPCs) for aeroshell separation. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) during TPC acceptance testing 

indicated that internal assemblies moved during shock and 

vibration testing due to an internal epoxy bond anomaly. This 

caused concerns that the launch environment might produce 

the similar displacement and release propellant grains that 

might be prematurely ignited through impact or electrostatic 

discharge (ESD) as grains vibrated against internal surfaces. 

Since a new lot could not be fabricated in time, the Ares I Project 

required a determination as to 

whether the lot was acceptable 

to fly.

NESC Contribution: A realtime assessment of inadvertent 

TPC ignition hazard allowed the 

WSTF-led multi-center NESC 

team to assist the Ares I Project. 

The NESC hazard analysis identified conservatism in previous 

analysis and determined that an 

uncommanded ignition was unlikely. However, propellant grain 

impact and ESD testing were 

performed under representative 

mission conditions to provide 

additional quantitative data. The NESC also assisted with 

state-of-the-art NDE techniques to better evaluate the epoxy 

bond integrity. 

Results: Neutron computed tomography and focused immersion ultrasonic (UT) scanning techniques were used. These 

methods effectively imaged the bonded area, and provided 

a comparison to the Ares I Project’s handheld UT method. 

The propellant impact test matrix included 1 to ~100 grains 

of propellant, and drop energies ~100 times the anticipated 

worst-case energy input. Propellant 

grains tested in a high fidelity TPC 

configuration did not ignite at impact 

energies ~100 times greater than 

the mission scenario. To evaluate 

the ESD concern, a representative 

TPC simulator was fabricated, but 

used polymers with greater triboelectric charging potential. Charging during a predicted three sigma 

Ares I-X launch vibration profile was 

less than 0.001 of the required ignition energy, leading to a conclusion 

that launch vibration would not initiate the TPC. 

Lessons Learned: High fidelity testing is often required to understand 

true safety margins.

wave azimuth = 0 deg.

wave side = leading

wave direction = 0 deg.

X

Z

VZ

VX

VW

VV,W

Ares I-X Thruster Pressure Cartridge Inadvertent Ignition Hazard — Real-Time Assessment 

Assessment of Ocean Wave Models Used to Analyze the Orion Crew Module Landing Conditions

NOAA

3-meter discus buoy.

AMA, Inc.

Ocean landing scenario depicting the CM impacting the face of a wave. Six 

major ocean landing scenarios have been developed. 

WSTF engineer Tim Gallus measures electrostatic build-up during 

testing of the TPC. The cartridge is shown installed on the shaker 

table at the New Mexico State University for vibration testing.
16

EXPLORATION TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The Orion Project requested alternate seat attenuation designs be developed and analyzed for occupant 

protection in the Orion crew module (CM) with primary focus on providing improved crew survivability for nominal and 

contingency land landing (CLL). Emphasis was placed on 

the Project-directed goals of improving robustness and maximizing crew protection from acceleration forces. Due to the 

team’s in-depth knowledge of the problem and work with isolation systems, the NESC was later asked to evaluate design 

options in the crew seat area to mitigate the Ares I thrust 

oscillation (TO) environment and evaluate any effect on crew 

response to landing loads.

NESC Contributions: The assessment team consisted 

of designers and analysts from multiple Centers (including 

GSFC, JSC, JPL and LaRC), contractors, and academia.

The Orion CM landing approach orients the module such that 

the reclined crew impacts the Earth’s surface (water or land) 

“feet first.” The result is that a major portion of the crew impact force vector is along the axis of the crew’s spines and 

the maximum energy absorbing stroke would be required in 

this direction. Alternate designs for CLL considered a variety 

of concepts with different approaches to improve the interface between the attenuating struts and the pallet, between 

the pallet and the seat, and between the seat and the crew.

Analysis performed by another NESC team assessing Orion 

occupant injuries found that improving the lateral restraint of 

the crew, as well as holding the crew tighter in a conformed 

seat, reduced injury risks. A NESC seat design expert developed and tested mockups of improved harnessing techniques to achieve these results.

Based on the Orion Project’s review of the alternate concepts, the NESC team focused detailed design and analysis 

effort on investigating the effectiveness of incorporating an 

isolation system between the seat pallet and the CM pressure vessel structure. Two concepts for a new pallet interface 

emerged. The first tilted the crew pallet during landing to 

provide a greater stroking distance to absorb more energy 

in the spine axis direction. The second concept focused on 

providing isolation at the strut-pallet interface.

The NESC team developed simplified dynamic response 

models and utilized the Orion baseline models to examine a 

range of pallet isolation properties for crew landing attenuation. The analytical tool development and the pallet isolation 

analysis were also used to examine mitigating the effects of 

TO from the Ares I first-stage solid rocket booster on the crew 

using isolation concepts. Coupled loads models for launch 

and landing models using LS-DYNA and Adams multibody 

dynamics software were used to examine the optimal TO isolation frequency that would minimize crew loads during all 

phases of the Orion flight. In addition, hardware design concepts for implementation of this feature have been generated. 

Orion Crew Seat Energy Attenuation Mechanism Concepts Developed for Occupant Protection

Concept of a mechanical 

strut that would minimize the 

loads to the crew through all 

phases of flight.

Concept of Orion six-person seats (left) on an isolation pallet (right) to provide crew safety over all phases of flight. 
17

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS EXPLORATION

Evaluation of Orion Occupant Protection 

through LS-DYNA Modeling

Problem: The Orion crew module (CM) is being designed 

with the capability of a primary water landing as well as 

contingency land landings. Reliable injury predictive tools 

and injury criteria are required to ensure that the Orion CM 

is designed with the appropriate level of occupant protection, and to define acceptable injury criteria associated with 

seat restraint and attenuation systems. While conventional 

tools used in the aerospace community typically lead to safe 

designs, they may be overly conservative resulting in additional complexity and increased system mass. Alternate approaches, such as those used in the automotive industry, 

may provide more fidelity; however, their application to the 

Orion Project requires modification and study. 

NESC Contribution: The NESC has developed finite element models (LS-DYNA) of Hybrid III anthropomorphic testing devices (ATDs) to assess potential crew injuries during 

Orion landings. Results from these finite element models (FEMs) and physical sled 

tests with the ATDs are being compared to whole-body injury models, 

commonly referred to as the Brinkley criteria, which have been typically used for aerospace applications. The ATD models allow for 

assessing the occupant restraint 

systems, cushion materials, side 

constraints, flailing of limbs, and 

detailed seat/occupant interactions 

to minimize landing injuries to the 

crew, whereas the whole-body models 

do not provide this level of detailed assessment. Predicted crew member response is obtained by loading the ATD using accelerations derived from 

vehicle landing simulations. The landing load accelerations, 

combinations of vertical, horizontal, lateral and rotational 

accelerations, are applied to the numerical Hybrid III FEMs 

properly positioned in models of the current Orion seat design. Injury criteria is then extracted from the simulations 

(e.g., neck forces, head accelerations, pelvic motion) and 

compared to recommended injury criteria established in the 

Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR). 

Results: While this work is ongoing, results thus far indicate 

numerical Hybrid III finite element models used in conjunction with the Brinkley criteria provide a useful set of tools for 

predicting and eliminating potential crew injuries. The FEM 

models developed in support of this task have also been 

used to evaluate proposed designs by the NESC team investigating alternate landing attenuation and isolation systems. This information will be used to understand trends in 

occupant protection and to define acceptable injury criteria 

associated with seat restraint and attenuation systems.

The NESC team continues to evaluate the effect of passive 

pallet isolation on the crew for landing impact.

Results: Modeling of NESC isolation concepts versus the 

baseline design showed improvement in the impact acceleration forces experienced by the seat occupant in all three axes 

for most load cases by reducing the dynamic amplification 

portion of the load. Other load cases did not show significant 

impact acceleration improvement with isolation but did show 

increased stroke in some instances. The NESC team is evaluating active systems to improve the strut performance over 

the baseline for all landing cases.

Results from the TO study confirmed the optimal crew isolation frequency and revealed a potential problem with a rocking mode of the crew seat should isolation be implemented 

at that location. The NESC team also examined pallet isolation and found that approach to be more appealing from a 

load mitigation perspective. Isolating in series with the pallet 

struts has a lower effect on crew landing loads than seat isolation and a higher probability of successful implementation. 

The NESC team continues to evaluate updated load cases 

and refine the hardware design concept. Engineering evaluation tests are planned for late 2009 into early 2010. These 

tests will be focused on determining the effectiveness of the 

isolation frequency for crew performance during the TO event 

as well as the isolators contribution to landing impact loads 

on the crew.

Current Orion landing concept for water or land orients the crew where the 

majority of the impact energy is along the crew spine, requiring maximum 

energy absorption of the seat isolation system in this direction. Alternate 

methods are being explored.

Resultant 

Velocity 

Vector
18

EXPLORATION TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: A reliability assessment of the Crew Exploration 

Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) showed 

it to be the top contributor to the overall probability of loss 

of crew (LOC) for the Orion crew module (CM). The NESC 

was requested to perform an independent assessment

of the Orion Project’s reliability assessment methods, the 

various design options under consideration and the ability of the draft development and certification programs to 

effectively and efficiently uncover, characterize and retire

reliability risks.

NESC Contribution: The NESC formed a diverse team of experts in parachute design, design-development and testing 

from LaRC, MSFC, the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Sandia 

National Laboratories. Experts in avionics, materials, testing, 

statistics, reliability, and design of experiments (DoE) were 

added from LaRC, GRC, GSFC, SSC, and five contractors. 

Two heritage-Apollo parachute and safety experts were also 

included to provide historical perspective on the development 

of recovery parachute systems for crewed space vehicles.

Results: The NESC team provided the Orion Project with 

early interim recommendations on design options and design 

development practices related to reliability. The team later 

provided additional recommendations on effective development testing and on comprehensive, resource-efficient verification activity planning using DoE techniques. The team’s 

innovative recommendations, made possible by the diversity 

of its members’ perspectives, will help the Orion parachute 

team define a robust and reliable design in time for their Preliminary Design Review.

Mike Herr (left), Senior System Engineer with the Naval Air Warfare Center, 

and Bob West, retired Test Manager of the Apollo Earth Landing System, 

examine an Orion drogue parachute at Airborne Systems North America.

Independent Review of Orion Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk Assessment

Independent Review of the CEV Parachute Assembly Subsystem for Orion Crew Module

Problem: One of the greatest recognized risks the Orion crew module 

will face is that posed by micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD), 

and protecting the spacecraft from 

MMOD damage influences many of 

the design decisions made by the 

Orion Project.

NESC Contribution: The NESC 

performed a review of Orion’s 

MMOD risk assessment process. 

This included evaluating the MMOD 

environment models, hypervelocity 

testing programs, and the software 

tools used to compute the risk due 

to MMOD. The NESC team also 

produced their own MMOD risk assessment using a software 

application parallel in function to the tool (Bumper II) used 

by the Orion Project. With this 

alternative tool the NESC team 

successfully verified the gross 

assumptions and computations 

of Bumper II. The NESC team 

included some of the country’s 

leading experts on MMOD from 

JPL, GSFC, and JSC, as well as 

from the Institute for Defense 

Analysis, The Aerospace Corporation, and the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Results: The team identified several areas in the Orion Project’s 

risk assessment that either overpredicted or under-predicted risk, 

and offered recommendations that could lead to a better estimation of actual MMOD risk.

MMOD impact on satellite component retrieved during the 

STS-41C Solar Max repair mission. The hole is 500 microns – 

about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
19

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS EXPLORATION

Problem: Sensors are ubiquitous system elements for applications ranging from monitoring to closed-loop control 

in ground-based and space-based platforms. Methods are 

sought to simplify sensor configuration and maintenance, and 

contribute positively to systems engineering trades involving 

wiring, power consumption, and reliability. Promising sensor 

technologies require application in a relevant environment to 

advance the technology readiness level to 6/7. 

NESC Contribution: A project was proposed to demonstrate sensor system advances including: (1) smart sensors 

adhering to defined standards, (2) small reconfigurable commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) data acquisition system, (3) integration of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology 

for tracking system elements and to link to EEE1451.4 transducer electronic data sheets (TEDS), (4) power distributed 

over ethernet (POE), (5) wireless sensors, and (6) intelligent 

sensors that embed health assessment. SSC proposed the 

Smart & Intelligent Sensor Payload (SiSP) Project, which was 

approved for ground operations associated with the MLAS 

launch. 

The SiSP development approach adopted the MLAS Resident Engineer model; where two junior-level engineers at 

SSC were selected as the electrical and mechanical leads. 

The SiSP Project involved several collaborations. KSC contributed their smart networked element (SNE) intelligent sensor, GRC defined pressure measurement requirements, and 

MSFC coordinated acoustic measurements. 

Results: The SiSP was installed at the WFF launch pad in 

advance of the MLAS launch. External SiSP sensors included four pressure transducers on the launch stool to collect 

ignition overpressure measurements, two radiometers on the 

blast wall, and a microphone near the launch pad. Internal 

SiSP sensors, including thermocouples and a tri-axial accelerometer with RFID tags, were attached to selected modules to demonstrate automated inventory verification. RFID 

tagged transducers were also used to access virtual TEDS 

parameters. The proximity of the rocket plumes destroyed 

much of the interconnect cabling, preventing communication 

with the SNE. Fortunately the health detection capabilities 

of this sensor had been previously demonstrated in another 

project. Review of the data that resulted from the SiSP experiment showed that it achieved its primary objectives.

Lessons Learned: The availability of sensor standards provides the ability to simplify sensor installation and maintenance, moving toward plug-and-play capability. In particular, 

TEDS provides key benefits that reduce labor associated with 

configuration. The SiSP Project showed that a cost-effective 

method of retrofitting TEDS capability into existing sensors 

can be accomplished using RFID and simplified interconnections can be achieved using POE. The advantage of flexible 

COTS data acquisition systems has been demonstrated by 

the reuse of SiSP components to achieve rapid turnaround 

development of several follow-on systems.

Smart and Intelligent Sensor Payload Technology Advancement and Demonstration

(Above, from left) John Schmalzel, Andrew Bracey, and Stephen Rawls 

prepare the SiSP sensor package for the MLAS launch. (Right) MLAS Flight 

Test Vehicle is shown on the launch stool during sensor installation.
20

EXPLORATION TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The Launch Abort System (LAS) for the Orion 

Crew Exploration Vehicle will provide a means of separating 

the crew module (CM) from the Ares I in the case of a launch 

vehicle malfunction occurring from the time the crew enters 

the CM through ascent to orbit. As a risk mitigation effort for 

the technical development of the Orion LAS, the NESC designed, built, and tested an alternative concept, independent 

of the Orion Project.

NESC Contribution: Conceptually, the Max Launch Abort 

System (MLAS) extracts the Orion CM from the launch vehicle using alternative methods for 

providing propulsion, stabilization, and parachute deployment 

compared to the current Orion 

baseline design. The MLAS flight 

test was a full-scale unmanned 

pad abort test demonstrating the 

viability of this alternative design.

The flight test vehicle (FTV) was 

assembled, tested and launched 

from the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) to take advantage of 

decades of sounding rocket development and flight experience. 

Over 150 people from across the 

Agency and industry participated in the MLAS Project. This 

was an accelerated project lasting approximately two years 

and was intended to run independently of, but parallel to, the 

Orion Project’s own LAS development. To meet cost and 

schedule goals, off-the-shelf hardware and existing technologies were used wherever possible. The team also adopted 

a rapid prototyping approach wherein testing was performed 

on those subsystems and components that were deemed 

high risk and/or priorities in ensuring the success of the mission objectives. Testing included wind tunnel exposures to 

validate the aerodynamic design, a 

booster motor firing, vibration exposures of selected avionics boxes, and firing of frangible release 

ordnance. In addition, the landing 

system was extensively tested including a parachute mortar firing, 

several ground deployment tests, 

and a helicopter-initiated drop test 

demonstrating a portion of the 

parachute deployment sequence. 

To reach the coast phase of flight, 

the FTV was staged with a boost 

skirt containing four MK 70 solid 

rocket motors, which launched the 

Max Launch Abort System Risk Reduction Test Completed Successfully

Final check out of the MLAS FTV in the high bay of the WFF Payload Processing Facility prior to transport to the launch pad.

A CH-53 from the HX-21 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron was 

used to successfully release the MLAS forward bay cover drop 

test payload.
21

ON-BOARD IMAGES RANGE IMAGES

Boost skirt separation viewed from the CM heatshield.

Coast skirt separation viewed from the FTV outer mold line.

CM release viewed from inside of the forward fairing.

The forward fairing and coast skirt (left) integrated for fit check prior to 

encapsulation of the crew module (right).

On-Board and Range Flight Video Imagery

Dr. Charles Schafer, NESC Chief Engineer at MSFC, monitors MLAS propulsion system sensors moments before liftoff.

Liftoff of the MLAS FTV from the WFF test range. 

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS EXPLORATION

FTV and placed it at the proper altitude and velocity for the 

testing phases. After the boost skirt was released, the FTV 

coasted, stabilized by fins on the coast skirt, demonstrating passive coast stabilization. To transition from the coast 

phase to the landing phase, parachutes were used to reorient 

the vehicle to a vertical attitude. At that point, the forward 

fairing released the CM simulator and the landing demonstration began. All of the components landed in the ocean. The 

88-second flight test accomplished all MLAS Project objectives. 

Results: The flight test of the MLAS FTV was successful and 

will provide NASA, and specifically the Orion Project, with a 

dataset to be used as needed with the development of the 

final Orion design. The major objectives of demonstrating 

passively stable coast, passive reorientation, and the landing parachute deployment were met. The MLAS Project also 

provided a unique opportunity for NASA engineers and analysts to design, build, and test a full-scale prototype vehicle, 

expanding NASA’s experience base in accelerated design 

and development projects. The interaction between NESC 

technical leaders, Apollo veterans, and early-career Resident 

Engineers also created a learning opportunity for everyone. 

The NESC Resident Engineer Program, where junior-level engineers are detailed to the NESC for one year, has since been 

spun off as an NESC program of its own.
22

Robert Browning (left) from WSTF and Curtis Banks from MSFC, install conventional and Fiber 

Bragg Grating strain gauges on a Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel for testing.
23

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL

Problem: The NESC Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor 

(SBKF) Project was established in March 2007 to develop and 

validate new analysis-based shell buckling design factors 

(i.e. knockdown factors) for Ares I and V metallic and composite launch vehicle structures. Refined knockdown factors 

will enable significant weight savings in these vehicles and 

will help mitigate launch vehicle development and performance risks.

NESC Contribution: The NESC has supported a significant 

portion of the SBKF Project, including funding for the design 

and fabrication of a large-scale test facility, the first series of 

large-scale buckling test articles, programmatic and technical support, peer reviews, and advocacy.

Results: In FY09, the SBKF Project made significant progress in several key work areas including sub-component 

and component testing and analysis, Ares V structures trade 

studies and associated mass savings estimates, and testing 

of an alternate aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloy for Ares V core 

stage. Some of the highlights for this year include successful testing of two 8-foot-diameter Al-Li orthogrid barrel test 

articles one of which was representative of a 45 percentscale Ares I upper stage liquid hydrogen tank barrel section. 

The high-fidelity analysis predictions of these large-scale 

tests continue to correlate well with the test result and, once 

fully validated, will become the basis of new analysis-based

design factors. The subcomponent analysis and test activity 

within the SBKF Project completed its first set of path-finding 

stiffened panel crippling tests at LaRC. These tests were 

used to integrate a typical local stiffener failure mode that 

is not well understood and is not accounted for explicitly in 

current Agency design practice. Analysis tools and nonlinear 

orthotropic material models are being developed to aid in the 

design of these important detail features. The Advance Aluminum Alloy Development activity and the Structures Trade 

Study activity worked together to identify the benefits of other 

Al-Li alloy materials on the design of several Ares V vehicle 

concepts. The results of the study indicated thicker Al-Li 

material would enable more structurally efficient orthogrid 

barrel components by increasing the height of the machined 

stiffeners. To this end, Al-Li 2050 was identified as a candidate replacement material for Al-Li 2195 in the Ares V core 

stage because it is available in thick plate material, has similar material properties to 2195, and is currently being used 

in commercial aircraft. The NESC supported the purchase 

of a large plate of 4-inch-thick 2050 material for preliminary 

material property and subcomponent screening tests to assess the performance of the material in typical launch-vehicle 

specific environments. The SBKF Project was peer reviewed 

in March 2009, and has published 13 technical reports summarizing trade studies, testing, analysis, and design activities 

and results. 

Launch Vehicle Shell Buckling Knockdown Factors Testing Underway

Andrew Lovejoy (seated) Stress Analyst, and Dr. Mark Hilburger, 

(center) Principal Investigator from LaRC; and Mike Roberts, Test 

Engineer, MSFC discuss real time data from an Ares V-style shell 

under test at MSFC (right). 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The NESC was asked by the NASA Engineering 

Management Board to identify candidate design problems 

to highlight the potential of probabilistic design methods, an 

alternative approach to the more traditional factor-of-safety 

paradigm commonly used in aerospace structural design. 

Probabilistic design methods incorporate aleatory (random) 

and epistemic (manufacturing, tolerance, etc.) uncertainty 

models as well as material and load variability probability 

distributions to obtain quantitative sensitivity and probabilityof-failure information about the design. This information can 

be used to make informed judgments about critical system 

testing needs, manufacturing controls, the relative reliability 

of design options, and the balancing of reliability and performance of integrated system components. Tailoring of the 

overall system reliability to the operational scenario may then 

allow, for example, lighter launch vehicle structural designs 

than would be obtained by using factor-of-safety or worston-worst case load combinations.

NESC Contribution: The NESC formed a team of probabilistic design methods experts from LaRC, GRC, and MSFC, 

safety and reliability experts from HQ, and discipline experts 

in structures, loads and dynamics, and controls from various Centers, industry and academia. The team met with key 

engineering personnel from the Ares V and Altair Projects, 

identified over 30 candidate problems, and developed ranking criteria to reduce the final number of candidate problems 

to six. 

Results: These candidate problems, along with recommendations for increasing the awareness and use of physics-based 

probabilistic analysis and design methods, were provided to 

Agency senior management.

Increasing the Use of Physics-Based Probabilistic Analysis and Design within the Agency

Probabilistic design methods for the Lunar Surface Access Module, Altair, may lead to designs that decrease weight while increasing performance.
25

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL

Problem: For missions requiring entry into an atmosphere, the entry, descent, 

and landing (EDL) system is 

a key driver of the mission 

architecture. The Orion and 

Mars Science Laboratory 

(MSL) Projects have many 

EDL similarities, as they both 

use a guided and lifting atmospheric entry of a blunt 

capsule. In the past, there 

had been limited collaboration between these two Projects, mostly in the areas of 

aerothermodynamics and thermal protection systems, but 

they were otherwise developing independent engineering solutions to this critical mission phase. 

NESC Contribution: The NESC organized a workshop in 

April 2009 to provide an opportunity for the Orion and MSL 

Projects to exchange and compare their EDL design requirements, technical approaches, testing strategies, top concerns, and lessons learned, as well as to extend their collaboration to other technical areas. Approximately 50 people 

from NASA and industry attended the workshop representing 

the Orion and MSL EDL teams 

and several NESC Technical 

Discipline Teams. 

Results: Technical discussions took place in the areas 

of aerodynamics, reaction 

control system jet interactions, guidance and control, 

uncertainties, modeling and 

simulation, decelerators, event 

triggers, and verification and 

validation. In general, the 

workshop participants built a 

shared understanding of their 

EDL engineering challenges, 

technical approaches, risks, lessons learned, and developed 

improved communication channels between the teams. The 

workshop products included a summary of key findings and 

recommendations, desired topics for future technical interactions, and identification of the best opportunities to leverage 

their engineering experience to improve EDL solutions and 

reduce risk to the Orion and MSL missions. The participants 

also made recommendations for future NESC-sponsored engineering studies that could address EDL challenges outside 

the scope of these Projects.

NASA Technical Fellows Sponsor Entry, Descent, and Landing Engineering Workshop

Problem: Entry, descent, 

and landing (EDL) flight simulations are typically developed for specific tasks and 

in many cases once the effort 

is completed, the simulation 

models are not adequately 

documented or retained. 

Many projects or studies requiring EDL would benefit 

from high-fidelity simulations 

with a library of validated and 

documented models.

NESC Contribution: An 

NESC team is converting and 

archiving relevant EDL models and scripts into a secure 

user library with appropriate user documentation and 

test cases. These models 

include: mass and aerodynamic models, and atmospheric 

models; guidance and control algorithms from a number of 

past and current Earth and 

planetary flight projects; and 

new simulation models (ellipsed aeroshell, inflatable 

decelerators, and supersonic 

retro propulsion) under development by an Agency-wide 

EDL systems analysis study 

team.

Results: It is expected the 

products of this assessment 

will help define the required 

architectures and investment 

strategies to enable a wide 

range of future robotic and 

human exploration missions. 

Additionally, it will increase the 

ability of the Agency to provide 

rapid evaluation of EDL characteristics in systems analysis 

studies, preliminary design, mission development and execution, and to respond to time-critical assessments.

Developing a Simulation Framework for Rapid Entry, Descent, and Landing Analysis

Models used to simulate successful EDL missions are being collected and 

stored in a secure repository to facilitate rapid prototyping of future missions.

Brian Hoelscher, Subsystem Manager for Orion Entry Flight Control, discusses 

control of the Orion spacecraft during entry at the EDL Workshop. 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: Stress rupture of composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) is a time-dependent failure mode of 

the composite material that can occur at operating pressures 

and temperatures resulting in a burst of a COPV below the 

ultimate strength. In previous assessments of COPV stress 

rupture risk, deficiencies were identified in the parameters 

and structure of modeling approaches used to predict the 

stress rupture lifetime of COPVs. 

NESC Contribution: To address this Agency-wide problem, 

the NESC assembled a team of both analytical and test experts from JPL, LaRC, GRC, and MSFC with backgrounds 

in composite modeling, statistical methods and uncertainty, 

COPV fabrication, and strand material property testing. The 

analytical team will identify a model that will include the effects of proof testing and uncertainty treatment.

Results: Analysis and testing is planned to be conducted 

over several years. The NESC team will publish the strand 

and subscale COPV empirical data, updated or new reliability 

estimation models, findings and recommendations, and a list 

of underlying assumptions. This will be packaged for presentation to NASA projects and programs. In addition, testing 

methods and lessons learned during the testing phases will 

be compiled along with any recommended follow-on testing.

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel Life Prediction Model Development

Numerous COPVs are used in the Mars Science Laboratory sky-crane, which is designed to 

lower the rover to the Martian surface by a tether.
27

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL

Problem: NASA faces recertification 

and life extension issues for Kevlar® 

epoxy composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) used on the 

Space Shuttle orbiter. Of particular 

concern is a catastrophic “burstbefore-leak” failure mode caused by 

stress rupture. Reliability issues also 

exist for International Space Station carbon-epoxy COPVs, which 

are susceptible to impact damage, 

resulting in a reduction of the burst 

strength. 

NASA is actively developing sensitive nondestructive evaluation (NDE) 

methods for use during the COPV 

life cycle. Acoustic emission (AE) 

has shown particular promise for real-time detecting and 

monitoring of the stress-wave propagation produced by actively growing defects in composite overwraps of COPVs. 

NESC Contribution: The NESC team implemented voluntary consensus standards used by industry for AE characterization of damage progression using intermittent load hold 

stress. The team gained insight into progressive damage by 

monitoring AE event rate and energy. Source location data 

helped discern between AE due to 

microstructural damage and background noise. 

Results: When stressing (pressurizing) a COPV, usually no AE from 

the overwrap is observed upon reloading until the previous load has 

been exceeded. This is classically 

known as the Kaiser effect. A corresponding numerical value known 

as the Felicity ratio, which is the applied stress at which significant AE 

begins during loading divided by 

the applied stress during the previous cycle, is used to determine if the 

Kaiser effect holds or is violated. At 

Felicity ratio ≤ 1.0, the Kaiser effect 

is violated, which is indicative of irreversible, accumulated 

damage in the overwrap. Waveform analysis of the AE events 

and corresponding microscopic indications associated with 

violation of the Kaiser effect could lead to robust pass-fail 

acceptance criteria for COPVs.

Lessons Learned: Application of voluntary consensus standards used by industry can help solve difficult technological 

problems that confront NASA.

Problem: Long-term reliability of composite overwrapped pressure vessels 

(COPVs) is still uncertain. Although 

design, test, and manufacturing procedures are well developed, additional 

data are needed to verify reliability predictions. Complex COPV structures

require high-precision analytical models to predict safety and reliability.

NESC Contribution: A joint NESC, 

GRC and WSTF effort developed numerical modeling of COPVs to increase 

predictive capabilities. A building-block 

approach, with evaluation of finite

element analysis techniques, has improved NASA COPV life prediction 

capabilities. One focus was accurate 

modeling of manufacturing autofrettage 

processes to capture and quantify the 

resulting mechanical response. Autofrettage pressurizes the COPV metal liner 

past its yield stress to plastically deform 

it while constrained by the overwrap, 

resulting in a compressive state at ambient pressure conditions. 

Physical measurement data from pressurized COPV testing are factored into 

the numerical simulation models. Preliminary data analysis quantifies the level 

of permanent liner deformation. 

Results: While initial understanding of 

the base components’ material properties and structure was critical to

accurately predict stress states, COPVs 

could be accurately modeled with

numerical simulation techniques, which 

improve as mechanical results of autofrettage are better understood. The latest models provided insight into critical 

areas within a specific COPV structure. 

Numerical simulation information, coupled with physical testing, enhanced

the in-situ monitoring of vessels for life 

time assessment and guided designers to improve processes for safety and

reliability.

Applying Acoustic Emission to Characterization of COPV Progressive Damage

Modeling of Carbon Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel for Autofrettage Response

WSTF Project Leader Ralph Lucero (left), Jacobs Technology, and Dr. Valery Godinez, Mistras NDE Solutions, check 

Acoustic Emission (AE) sensors prior to test.

Technician Don Saunders installs a COPV autofrettage test article into the WSTF 860 test system as 

Project Leader Ralph Lucero (left), Jacobs Technology, looks on.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) flight test 

demonstrated an alternate launch abort system for the Orion 

spacecraft. The flight demonstration involved a number of 

separation and parachute deployment events critical to the 

operation of the vehicle. Detailed visual imagery of these 

events was necessary for accurate post-flight assessments. 

NESC Contribution: Under NESC sponsorship, the Hypersonic Thermodynamic Infrared Measurements (HYTHIRM) 

team identified a ground-based visual and infrared camera 

system of high resolution and frame rate that would be capable of capturing the details of the MLAS flight. This camera system, known as the Mobile Aerospace Reconnaissance 

System (MARS), was used to image the MLAS flight and 

capture the details of the separation and parachute recovery 

events required to successfully deliver the Orion Crew Module (CM) Simulator safely to the Atlantic Ocean.

Results: The imaging of the MLAS flight demonstrated the 

advanced capability of the MARS camera system to provide 

detailed, high-resolution video of complex flight events and 

processes. Images captured from a distance of over 2.5 

miles are sharp and detailed enough to capture details of the 

CM separating from the forward fairing, parachute extraction 

and deployment, and splashdown dynamics as the CM entered the ocean. 

The MARS system successfully captured all CM separation 

and parachute deployment events. Detailed processing of 

the CM separation from the forward fairing has been used to 

better determine and understand the mechanics of the CM 

separation, which was also captured by on-board inertial 

measurement unit instrumentation. Time synchronization of 

the images provided the ability to post-process the imagery 

to determine overall vehicle and component trajectories. Simultaneous imaging in both the visual and infrared spectrums 

provided additional contrast and definition that could not be 

obtained by either method alone.

Mobile Aerospace Reconnaissance System Performs MLAS Visual Imagery Demonstration

Problem: The Chief of the Energy Systems Branch at JSC requested an NESC assessment of the ISS Extravehicular Maneuvering Unit (EMU) Long Life Battery (LLB). The LLB had 

been identified as an ideal candidate for redesign in order to 

use the longer cycle life and higher specific energy densities 

associated with Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) cells when compared to 

its current silver-zinc-based batteries. Li-Ion batteries are increasingly used in space programs in an effort to minimize 

launch mass. The issue of addressing electrode thermal 

instability and flammability of the electrolyte in Li-Ion cells 

that make them prone to catastrophic thermal runaway was 

necessary in order to consider them safe for use in spacecraft or spacesuit environments. It was 

essential that the risk of using these 

batteries be thoroughly understood and 

potential modifications to the design or 

testing/screening of the cells and batteries required examination to reduce 

the probability of failure and increase 

the reliability and safety.

NESC Contribution: The NESC organized and led a team of Li-Ion battery 

experts from GRC, GSFC, JPL, JSC, 

MSFC, The Aerospace Corporation, 

and other government agencies. The 

team was tasked with identifying known 

causes of internal electrical shorting 

mechanisms in 18650 size Li-Ion cells 

as well as providing a technical review 

of the preliminary thermal and electrical design application for the LLB. The 

NESC team provided expert opinion, probabilistic

failure occurrence analyses, and an examination of 

the basic safety features currently implemented in 

commercial charger and battery designs for applicability

to the LLB.

Results: The results of the assessment included a comprehensive set 

of recommendations for screening 

battery cell lots and performing worst 

case thermal analysis to minimize the 

chances of a Li-Ion cell short in the 

proposed LLB design. These findings were realized in time to support 

the Project scheduled Critical Design 

Review. 

Application of Lithium-Ion Long Life Battery in the ISS EMU Being Studied

Cross-section view of a Li-Ion battery cell showing 

crimp and electrode design features.
TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL

High-resolution MARS video of the MLAS CM simulator separation demonstrates that both qualitative and quantitative data can be 

extracted from a land-based imaging system operating at a range of over 2.5 miles.

Both visual (left) and infrared (right) imaging of the CM main parachutes provide sufficient detail to assess parachute damage or other

operational anomalies.

29
30

GENERAL

Independent Review of Research Flight Control System Software/Hardware

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: The Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC) 

Project requested the NESC review software plans to host 

both level A (safety critical) and level B (non-safety critical) software on the same Research Flight Control System 

(RFCS). This is a critical part of the development of a new 

F-18 testbed aircraft with a full array of capabilities supporting the Aviation Safety Program. The goal was to ensure that 

the new testbed is at least as safe as previous flight-control 

testbeds flown at DFRC. 

NESC Contribution: NESC technical experts reviewed the 

design approach that had been developed by the IRAC Project and its contractor. This was done through a review of 

contractor documentation and presentations, and a series of 

discussions with the project team and contractor. The NESC 

team assessed the application software approach, the level 

of testing, the methods used to separate the software, and 

other mitigation factors.

Results: The NESC review concluded the software design 

and testing methods the IRAC Project was using, combined 

with the limited flight envelope enabling the pilot to recover 

from any control system induced problem, will allow a satisfactory level of safety with no additional modifications required. In addition, future design improvements were identified that could be implemented by the IRAC Project to meet 

future testbed requirements at a later date.

Problem: The Agency requires improved capability to trend 

technical issues encountered in NASA programs.

NESC Contribution: The NESC is leading the Agency-level 

Data Mining and Trending Working Group (DMTWG) whose 

purpose is to assist in formulation and implementation of capability to strengthen trending of NASA programs and projects and to ensure appropriate visibility of data mining and 

trending. Through workshops, monthly meetings, and training, the NESC has developed working relationships with data 

mining and statistical experts within academia, industry, and 

other government agencies. 

Results: The DMTWG assisted NASA organizations by providing data mining experts to NESC assessments, such as 

the orbiter’s main propulsion system gaseous hydrogen flow 

control valve poppet failure. The DMTWG team also aided 

the development and implementation of linguistic data mining approach meant to ameliorate terminology inconsistencies in problem reporting under joint development by the JSC 

Engineering Directorate and the University of Central Florida. 

This group provided a forum to enhance communications 

across the Agency in the areas of data mining and trending 

by sharing ideas, methods, technologies, processes, tools, 

and lessons learned.

Data Mining and Trending Working Group Continues Efforts to Expand Trending

(From left) Dr. James Lee, IRAC Chief Engineer; Jerry Budd, IRAC Project 

Manager; and Dr. James Stewart, the NESC Chief Engineer at Dryden discuss the IRAC F-18 Testbed Aircraft software and hardware. 

Roger Schwarz (seated) Engineering Discrepancy Report Analyst, and David 

Throop of Boeing, a developer of the NASA Semantic Trend Analysis Tool 

prototype, view results from text mining.
31

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL

Problem: Multiple projects across 

NASA desire using the latest Actel 

RTAX-S series Field Programmable 

Gate Arrays (FPGAs). These parts offer significant advantages over the use 

of previous FPGA versions (RTSX-S or 

RTSX-SU) with regard to maintenance 

of signal integrity, capacity, capability, 

speed, and electrostatic discharge tolerance. Reported user application related 

failures in the previous generation of FPGAs (RTSX-S) precipitated concerns late 

in the hardware design cycle for several 

NASA projects, causing significant cost 

impacts and higher mission risks.

NESC Contribution: The NESC conducted a 6,000-

hour test of 80 units (two lots) of RTAX250S and 80 units 

(two lots) of RTAX2000S programmed with an algorithm 

designed to emulate expected space flight applications. 

The test series subjected the parts to 

the voltage specification limit and temperature specification limit conditions. 

The selected representative space 

flight designs include multiple copies 

of a Military Specification 1553 Remote 

Terminal interface, an eight-bit microprocessor (PIC 16F84), Embedded 

Block Random Access Memory, an Error Detection and Correction algorithm, 

a Memory Controller, and a Universal 

Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter.

Results: Following completion of the 

planned 6,000-hour test in the second 

quarter of calendar year 2009, the preliminary results indicated no part failures or part “out of specification” conditions. There was observable parametric trending which is still being analyzed. The parts will be transferred 

to Actel for additional Actel-funded radiation testing.

Problem: The Agency recently experienced “high profile” 

connector problems, the most visible and publicized of these 

being the problem with the Space Shuttle’s main engine cutoff system (specifically the cryogenic feed-through connector). This problem had similarities to an Atlas expendable 

launch vehicle issue experienced and resolved some years 

earlier. These occurrences pointed to the need for a broader 

Agency review of the electrical connector selection and application processes for space flight applications and how lessons learned and past problem records are fed back into the 

processes to avoid recurrences. 

NESC Contribution: An NESC team which included members from all Centers, reviewed spacecraft electrical connector selection and application processes at each Center 

on specific projects. This included reviewing how lessons 

learned are incorporated and disseminated. Each Center’s 

controlling documentation for spacecraft connector selection and application, including the roles of government and 

contractors, was also examined. In December 2008, the 

team participated in a Government Inter-Agency Science and 

Technology Wiring Working Group Meeting and surveyed 

the Society of Automotive Engineers Connector Committee 

members regarding their experience relative to NASA connector concerns. For this assessment, the NESC team attempted to determine whether spacecraft electrical connector selection and application processes could be improved, 

and if so, whether the NESC could provide assistance in furthering that goal.

Results: While the number of documented operational failures is not large when the scope of use is considered, the 

majority of spacecraft electrical connector issues are application-related and tend to reoccur with potentially serious 

consequences to mission success and safety. Connector 

failures occur throughout the life-cycle (from design to field 

usage), but analysis on two data samples still suggests that 

the majority of connector issues are application related. The 

team recommended several targeted adjustments to improve 

the effectiveness of the existing Lessons Learned Information 

System and community. 

RTAX-S Field Programmable Gate Arrays Risk Reduction Testing Continues

Improving Spacecraft Connector Selection to Reduce Failure Rates

Circuit board using multiple RTAX2000S parts.

Bob Arp, an aerospace technician with the United Launch Alliance, repairs 

a replacement feed-through connector installed in the external fuel tank on 

STS-122.
Launch of STS-124 which carried the module to complete the 

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Kibo laboratory.
33

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS SPACE OPERATIONS

Problem: During the launch of STS124, the flame trench on Pad 39-A 

sustained significant damage. Blast 

impact and subsequent flow from the 

firing of the Solid Rocket Boosters 

(SRBs) dislodged more than 3,000 

20-lb. ceramic fire bricks from the 

wall of the flame trench, breaking 

many into pieces and ejecting them 

from the trench at velocities as high 

as 1000 ft/sec. The vast majority 

of these bricks and fragments were 

driven well clear of the launch pad 

and posed no threat to the Space 

Shuttle or pad facilities during liftoff 

and no damage due to this event was 

recorded on the orbiter. However, the question was raised as 

to whether a brick or one of its fragments could be entrained 

in the Space Shuttle engine exhaust flow or ricochet off pad 

structure and damage the orbiter during liftoff. 

NESC Contribution: Engineers from MSFC employed highly 

detailed Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques to 

predict the velocities and pressures in the flame trench during 

the liftoff event. Data from these simulations were then used 

by engineers at both MSFC and JSC to predict debris tracks 

and ultimately clear future Space Shuttle missions for the 

possibility of similar events. Since the Orbiter Project analysis employed advanced CFD technology that had extremely 

limited application to flight problems of this type, the NESC 

was requested to perform a peer review of the Project’s analysis. To perform this review, the NESC assembled a panel of 

leading experts in the theory and development of these CFD 

techniques from LaRC and ARC. Ultimately, the panel was 

expanded and used to review and consult on the resulting 

debris transport analysis performed 

by the Orbiter Project and used as 

flight rationale for future shuttle missions.

Results: The NESC team found no 

credible fault or shortcoming in the 

Project’s fundamental approach to 

the problem and was supportive of 

their willingness to employ high fidelity 

analyses despite the limited validation 

and testing available for the methods 

employed. The panel did note some 

geometric modeling simplifications incorporated by the Project that could 

play a role in the analysis and recommended sensitivity analyses to determine which of these 

might most impact their results. One of the most significant 

results of the review identified a technology gap: the inability 

to accurately model the impact of the water deluge system 

employed on the pad to the resulting aerodynamic predictions. Both the reviewers and the Project felt that the water 

deluge could play a role in the aerothermodynamic development of the flow in the trench, but there was no methodology 

available to effectively predict this effect.

Lessons Learned: With appropriate technical expert review 

and consultation, complex analysis techniques with limited 

validation and/or application to the specific problem at hand 

can be effectively employed to predict and simulate complex 

physical problems resulting from ongoing flight operations. 

Also, exposure of the research and development community 

to the real-world problems of operational vehicles often uncovers shortcomings of existing technology and is useful in 

guiding future research and development efforts.

Computational Fluid Dynamics Used to Characterize STS-124 Launch Pad 39-A Damage

STS-124 launch resulted in over 3,000 fire bricks being stripped from the east wall of KSC Launch Pad 39-A.

Detailed CFD was used by MSFC engineers to predict 

the KSC Pad 39-A flame trench flowfield resulting from 

firing of the Space Shuttle SRBs.
34

SPACE OPERATIONS TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS 

Problem: Post-launch inspection of the 

Mobile Launch Platform-3, Pad 39-A 

Fixed Service Structure and Pad 39-A 

apron was conducted after the launch of 

STS-124. The inspection showed excessive Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) flame 

trench retention wall debris. Excessive 

liberation of bricks from the east retention 

wall was also observed. Extensive repair 

of the flame trench was performed. A region of 25x100 ft. of the east wall and a 

region of 25x80 ft. of the west wall were 

cleared of bricks. All around the cleared 

regions steel lintels were installed. A 

Fondue Fyre (FF) refractory concrete system was installed in 

the cleared regions. Anchor plates on brick walls above the 

lintels and near control joints were installed. 

NESC Contribution: An NESC debris transport team was 

formed to conduct a review of the design and analysis of the 

flame trench retention wall repair. The team did not perform 

any new analyses or tests, but reviewed all the materials, 

data, and analysis that pertained to the wall repair.

Results: The team found the flame trench wall repair design 

and analysis to be well documented and found that repair 

analysis showed all stresses were 

within the current allowable environmental requirements. Also, it was 

confirmed that design and sizing of 

all elements were performed according to current engineering practices. 

The team concluded that analysis of 

the FF system resulted in large positive margins demonstrating a safe 

and satisfactory design, although 

current Nondestructive Evaluation 

(NDE) techniques have not been 

validated to determine wall integrity. Qualitative tap-testing showed 

promise for detection of disbonds and voids in FF and debris 

liberation from brick wall and FF repair area appeared to be 

unlikely. 

The NESC team suggested that debris transport to the vehicle is unlikely. It recommended collecting sufficient vibroacoustic data to accurately determine the environment of the 

flame trench, validate the assumptions made in the vibroacoustic analyses, and continue the development and validation of NDE methods to assess the integrity of FF panels, 

bricks and control joints. 

Independent Review of Pad 39-A Flame Trench Repair

KSC workers repair east wall of Launch Pad 39-A damaged by STS-124 SRB ignition.

KSC inspectors test repairs on the Fondue Fyre refractory concrete system on the flame trench walls. Fondue 

Fyre was developed during Apollo.
35

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS SPACE OPERATIONS

Problem: The number of Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) 

gloves damaged during extravehicular activities (EVAs) has 

increased. The NESC assisted a JSC Materials and Processes team to identify glove damage modes.

NESC Contribution: The NESC assembled materials experts 

from LaRC, GRC, JSC, the US Army and SRI International. 

The team reviewed glove materials, manufacturing processes, and testing; examined damaged outermost Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (TMG) gloves using a unique NASA 

scanning electron microscope facility with enhanced capabilities; and conducted laboratory tests to duplicate observed 

microscopic damage modes where different off-nominal surfaces were used to replicate glove damage. 

Results: Detailed microscopy of eleven gloves confirmed 

that damage is the likely result of five damage modes. Ten 

gloves exhibited damage confined to the thumb region and 

a single glove exhibited damage in the palm region. In all 

cases, the exterior glove protective pad was damaged, exposing the glove fabric to damage and ultimately resulted in 

severed fabric yarn. Laboratory tests were conducted to reproduce TMG glove damage morphologies wherein comparisons of the test results to glove microscopy data confirmed 

glove damage modes and eliminated other proposed damage modes. Laboratory test results also revealed that glove 

damage is likely the result of contact with off-nominal (sharp 

and rough) surfaces during EVAs; such off-nominal surfaces 

may be produced by micrometeorite impacts. The investigation’s results also suggest that other multiple factors contribute to the damage processes, including fabric material properties, fabric architecture, protective pad-to-fabric adhesion, 

and EVA environments. In an attempt to mitigate future glove 

damage, understanding gained from this study has been applied to a TMG glove redesign. 

Root Cause Determination of Extravehicular Mobility Unit Glove Damage Modes

Scanning electron

microscopy image 

showing damaged 

VectranTM fibers.
36

SPACE OPERATIONS TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

Problem: During STS-126 ascent, an orbiter main propulsion 

system Gaseous Hydrogen (GH2) flow control valve (FCV) appeared to transition from low to high flow position without being commanded. Upon removal postflight, the FCV poppet was found to 

have approximately 20 percent of the 

upper flange fractured. Flight concerns 

from a poppet fracture include excessive ullage pressure causing the External Tank to vent during ascent and/or 

debris penetrating the downstream line 

producing GH2 leakage into the orbiter 

aft compartment.

NESC Contribution: The NESC augmented the Orbiter Project with subject 

matter expertise from Pratt & Whitney 

and seven Centers in the areas of high-pressure hydrogen 

fractography, nondestructive evaluation (NDE), materials 

characterization, reliability prediction, and computational 

fluid dynamics and structural analyses. 

These team members provided crucial 

STS-126 fracture analysis, low-stress 

polishing procedures, and eddy current (EC) NDE inspection standards.

Results: The FCV poppets are EC 

inspected for crack indications after 

each ground test and flight. The Orbiter Project is evaluating alternate 

poppet materials and FCV designs to 

preclude cracking, and methods for 

downstream line hardening for debris 

protection.

Problem: In September 2008, a damaged International Space 

Station (ISS) Active Thermal Control System radiator panel 

face sheet was discovered while inspecting for damage as a 

result of a possible Service Module thruster cover impact.

NESC Contribution: The NESC became involved at the request of the JSC Engineering Directorate. Initial activities included review of design, flight and micrometeoroid test data. 

NESC engaged LaRC expertise for infrared (IR) software operations and assisted in analyzing the radiator IR imagery. 

As part of the failure investigation, the NESC chartered a dynamic analysis of a panel failure scenario using the LS-DYNA 

software leveraging expertise from the JSC Structural Engineering Division. The model used a physics-based approach 

to simulate failure by a pressure event and reproduced many 

of the observed damage features. 

Results: By performing numerous sensitivity analyses, the 

team was able to characterize the failure mode and establish 

an estimate of the pressure required to induce the observed 

failure. Additionally, the NESC performed thermal radiation 

view factor analysis which corroborated panel-to-panel temperature trends which accounted for various radiator, solar 

array, and beta gimbal angles. The team arrived at a preliminary conclusion that the face sheet failure was a pressure 

event. NESC support will continue through the conclusion of 

the investigation.

Modeling of International Space Station Radiator Face Sheet Damage

STS-126 orbiter main propulsion system flow control valve poppet fracture showing 20 percent loss of

upper flange.

Assessment of the Orbiter Gaseous Hydrogen Flow Control Valve Poppet Cracking

(Left) On orbit photo depicting radiator face 

sheet damage. (Above) LS-DYNA analysis depicting predicted damage due to a pressure 

event.
37

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS SPACE OPERATIONS

Problem: Approximately three seconds before the STS-125 

launch, the orbiter encountered an anomaly associated with the 

Aerosurface Servo Amplifier (ASA)-1 indicated by a distorted, 

400Hz sinusoidal wave injected onto the M/DM FA1 and OA1 

signal return buses, which in turn affected several open ended 

telemetry signals. While the ASA-1 function is redundant, understanding the cause and implications of the failure in a timely 

fashion was critical in order to maintain both the safety of the 

STS-125 crew as well as preserving the mission to service the 

Hubble Space Telescope. The JSC NESC Chief Engineer requested independent power and avionics technical expertise 

for evaluation of the anomaly and assistance in determining the 

likely cause and impact to the mission.

NESC Contribution: Several NESC Electrical Power Technical Discipline Team members supported Orbiter Project personnel in examining the anomaly signatures. The team also 

provided assistance in evaluating the likely root cause as well 

as recommendations related to safely preparing the orbiter for 

re-entry. Real-time detailed review of ASA schematics identified two possible sources for the anomaly: one being similar 

in nature to the anomaly experienced during ground testing 

with STS-37 and the other being a less likely scenario caused 

by an internal short circuit failure within the ASA itself.

Results: In real-time, the most likely cause of the ASA-1 

anomaly was isolated to a 26V 400 Hz AC output signal short 

to ground. This condition resulted in the distorted excitation signal corrupting multiple telemetry signals sharing the 

common M/DM that persisted until the ASA power supply 

was isolated by the Remote Power Controller trip. Mission 

Control was able to revise the on-orbit checkout preparations 

to avoid the ASA involved to allow the orbiters’s safe return. 

Follow-up inspections confirmed a wire short on the suspect 

signal. The ASA involved was removed for failure analysis 

and repair.

STS-125 Aerosurface Servo Amplifier Anomaly Investigation Support

Problem: Destructive physical analysis of a failed flight T2 

transformer from a Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Power Bus 

Isolation Supply (PBIS) revealed one broken wire on a soldered pin resulting in a persistent open circuit. This failure 

had been seen in another T2 transformer and there was evidence of fatigue and insufficient strain relief. Such a failure, 

should it occur in one of five critical T2 leads, is a precursor 

to multiple failure modes for the SRB, including loss of hydraulic pressure to the thrust vector control actuators and 

subsequent SRB loss of control. The Office of Chief Engineer 

requested an NESC independent review to assess PBIS system failure risk.

NESC Contribution: The NESC team comprised of members from GSFC, JSC and MSFC systematically assessed 

the physics of the failure and the probability of the events 

which, if occur in sequence, lead to a critical failure. It was 

noted that the wires soldered to the T2 transformer pins had 

a 90-degree bend near the pin.

Results: Wire bending experiments at GSFC demonstrated that straight wires repeatedly bent through small angles 

failed at large numbers of cycles and had the characteristics of “wear out” failures. But wires that were pre-bent to a 

90-degree angle then bent repeatedly through small angles 

failed at many fewer cycles, and exhibited “random failures” 

behavior. Additionally, a mechanical break in a T2 wire would 

not necessarily lead to a persistent electrically open circuit. 

The NESC team concluded the PBIS units with less flight time 

should be given preference in flight assignment, or preferably, that a fix should be developed. The SRB contractor, 

the SRB Project, and MSFC Engineering proposed a simple 

and effective fix through the use of protective fuses. The 

NESC team endorsed this approach which was implemented 

on STS-127.

Analysis of Solid Rocket Booster PBIS Transformers Reliability

Launch of the STS-125 Mission which successfully repaired the Hubble 

Space Telescope.
38

SCIENCE TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

Problem: The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a multifunctional exploration rover that uses a number of similarly 

designed actuators for mobility and mechanical investigations. These actuators are located at each drive wheel, the 

front steering knuckles, the sensing mast and antenna, and in 

several robotic arm locations.

The MSL actuators are made of two major components: 

a gearbox and motor that bolt together as a unit. Due to 

the mission requirement of operation with minimal electrical

power over a wide range of temperatures (-70 C to 70 C), 

unconventional lubricants and bearing designs must be employed. The design features include minimal bearing preloads, solid lubricants, fluorocarbon greases, seal-less bearings, and ball bearing cages with high levels of clearance.

During system level tests, several undesirable performance 

issues were observed that have no readily identifiable 

cause(s). These issues include high levels of drag torque 

and unstable and high levels of drive motor current required 

to achieve minimum output torque levels. Because of these 

issues, the NESC was asked to perform an independent

assessment of the actuators. 

NESC Contribution: The NESC team was comprised of personnel from GRC, GSFC and JPL with expertise in materials, 

tribology, mechanical systems, and spacecraft design. 

Results: The NESC team identified three primary areas of 

concern: inconsistent bearing preload, poorly quantified motor shaft rotordynamics, and bearing cage instability. The 

rotordynamics modeling effort corroborated the contractor’s 

approach to forgo rotor balancing provided the bearing stiffness was maintained through adequate preload. Further, the 

analysis eliminated other potential sources of vibration except 

cage instability; this helped to determine the cause for the 

large amplitude current instabilities observed. These appear 

to have been traced to interference between the cage and 

improperly placed bearing preload shims in the motors. The 

enhanced preload methods, improved shimming, and subsequent testing resulted in improved actuator performance. 

Torque levels were manageable and every indication is that 

the life testing had a successful outcome.

Assessments of the Mars Science Laboratory Actuator Status-Tribomechanical Capabilities

The Mars Science Laboratory rover during assembly at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
WSTF Project Leader Luis Hernandez (right) and NASA WSTF Project Manager Regor Saulsberry 

discuss composite overwrapped pressure vessels test system assembly status.

39
40

ARC CENTER FOCUS 

During 2009, Ames Research Center (ARC) continued to provide a wide variety of expertise to NESC

activities. Approximately 50 ARC civil servants and 

contractors provided support to the NESC. ARC

provided expertise over a range of disciplines including human factors, wireless avionics, digital archives, composites, reentry systems, aerodynamics, 

nondestructive evaluation and flight dynamics. The 

NASA Technical Fellow for Human Factors is resident

at ARC.

Exploration Systems

Composite Crew Module (CCM): ARC provided 

ProEngineer support and testing of the CCM composite Pi preform joints. ARC personnel continued 

integrated assistance to the CCM team at Alliant 

Techsystems (ATK), to enhance cross-disciplinary 

knowledge and understanding of space structures 

fabrication processes. Specifically, this included 

lamination of the lower pressure shell and bonding of 

the backbone structure with Pi preform technology. 

Small areas of those joints were disbonded, so repair 

fittings were designed and machined at ARC, then sent to 

ATK for installation. 

Wireless Connections in Space (WCIS): In support of the 

NESC initiative to develop and demonstrate a highly reliable 

wireless architecture capable of being implemented in radiation tolerant devices, the ARC team is conducting wireless 

sensor web and mesh fault tolerance testing of Zigbee and 

801.11n products. The Wireless Fault Tolerance Testbed has 

been initiated, with the Zigbee Evaluation Kit and Daintree 

network analyzer. Initial experiments, protocol development, 

and test reports are in progress. ARC also contributed to the 

SSC Wireless Intelligent Sensor Module effort used on the 

MLAS flight test, which integrated IEEE 1451 standard sensor 

information structures, and led to a plug and play capability. 

The project will conduct an Ares V wireless instrumentation 

case study, applying the results of these evaluation efforts.

Entry, Descent, and Landing Data Repository (EDL-R): 

ARC is supporting the NESC EDL initiative by supporting the 

development, testing and populating of the EDL-R currently 

located at JPL. This includes significant contributions of Space Shuttle EDL data and software, and 

digital archive expertise.

EDL Systems Analysis (EDL-SA): ARC is providing 

aerodynamic, aerothermal, and thermal protection 

system (TPS) models to the NESC’s EDL-SA Project, 

and will develop a simulation framework and a set 

of validated sub-system models and scripts to allow 

rapid EDL evaluation. Numerous tools were used to 

generate the aerodynamic, aerothermal, and TPS 

models for both a rigid, mid lift/drag (L/D), ellipse 

sled configuration and for a flexible, low L/D, inflatable concept. The predictions provided by ARC will 

aid in the evaluation of capable EDL technologies for 

future Mars missions.

General

Flight Critical Hardware Test Facilities Human 

Factors Review: NASA operates test facilities for 

the development of cutting-edge aerospace technologies. These facilities often test one-of-a-kind 

flight critical hardware under extreme conditions, creating an 

unforgiving working environment. Although strict safety procedures are implemented, close calls and mishaps still may 

occur. 

An NESC-sponsored, ARC-led review of NASA test facilities operations indicated that close calls and mishaps may 

often be explained by predictable factors that affect human 

performance. Human factors assessments at NASA Centers revealed common underlying patterns in management, 

scheduling, maintenance, human system interfaces, procedures, training, and abnormal operation. A review of mishap 

reports and lessons learned indicated that prior assessments 

have revealed subsets of these same underlying issues.

However, the identified best practices have not been suitably applied to prevent recurring close calls and mishaps.

A report is in development to provide guidance on how to 

appropriately apply lessons learned to help predict and preclude potential failures during test operations. These methods may be easily integrated into NASA test facilities’ daily 

operations.

AMES RESEARCH CENTER

Dr. Ethiraj Venkatapathy (left) 

Flight Systems Lead for the 

CEV TPS Advanced Development Project and Dr. James 

Arnold, NESC Aeroscience 

Team member and reviewer, 

discuss the Avcoat heat 

shield manufacturing demonstration unit built by Textron.

(Right) CFD solution for the 

30-meter Long Ellipse Sled 

Configuration at Mach 6, 

50-Degree Angle of Attack.

Dr. Tina

Panontin

Former

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

ARC

Nans

Kunz

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

ARC
41

CENTER FOCUS DFRC

Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) scientists and 

engineers have contributed to the NESC’s multi-disciplinary teams in addressing the Agency’s toughest 

problems. DFRC engineers supported NESC in the 

areas of rapid entry, descent, and landing (EDL) analysis simulations, in development of the Loads and Dynamics Technical Discipline Team (TDT) Community 

of Practice (CoP) website supporting vibroacoustics 

best practices, and continue to support Composite 

Crew Module structural tests. In addition, the NESC 

technical experts have supported DFRC by independently assessing the safety of a new testbed’s aircraft flight 

control system hardware/software.

Exploration Systems

Composite Crew Module (CCM) Structural Testing: Building 

on last year’s structural testing, DFRC engineers, through 

support of NESC’s Nondestructive Evaluation TDT, are continuing to support NESC’s full-scale CCM Project. The team 

is currently preparing to support full-scale testing in early 

FY10. This task includes using NASA-developed fiber-optic 

sensor technology to monitor the structural strains at hundreds of locations around the windows, along the splice 

joint and on the backbone of the full-scale CCM. Each fiber 

is approximately the diameter of a human hair and can be 

placed in geometrically-complex regions where conventional 

sensors cannot be installed. The 0.5-inch spatial resolution 

also provides significantly higher measurement fidelity than 

conventional sensors. This feature is especially important 

for the areas of highly non-uniform strain gradients that are 

expected during testing. The fiber optic system, which was 

tested on the Ikhana aircraft this year, can monitor strains at 

rates that surpass commercially-available systems.

Space Operations

Simulation Modeling for Rapid Entry, Descent, 

and Landing: DFRC supported a multi-Center NESC 

team that is collecting and documenting EDL system 

architecture validating EDL models used to support 

various NASA missions (Genesis and Huygens). The 

team will utilize software developed at LaRC known 

as Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories 

(POST2). This widely-used trajectory software, originally used to complete Space Shuttle re-entry guidance profiles, has been used on recent Mars missions to assist in successful landings.

General 

Loads and Dynamics Community of Practice Website Development: DFRC engineers assisted in development of the 

Loads and Dynamics CoP website hosted by the NASA Engineering Network (NEN). The site was developed with the 

purpose of providing an easy resource for lessons learned, 

available relevant training, best practices, policies, and procedures while promoting collaboration among NASA’s structural dynamics and flight loads engineers. DFRC participation 

helped give the website an aeronautical perspective. Aeronautical-associated material, including documents on aircraft 

flight and ground testing, conferences, model development, 

and commonly used software were provided. 

Aeronautics

NESC supported a DFRC request to independently assess 

the hardware/software configuration of the Research Flight 

Control System (RFCS), which is a critical part of the development of a new test bed aircraft for the Integrated Resilient 

Aircraft Control (IRAC) Project in the Aeronautics Mission Directorate.

DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER

Dr. James 

Stewart

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

DFRC

Kia Davidson, a Dryden engineer and member of the NESC Loads and Dynamics TDT, demonstrates to Dr. James Stewart the features of the Loads 

and Dynamics CoP website that she helped develop. 

(From left) Anthony Piazza, Allen Parker, and Dr. Lance Richards (Group 

Lead) of the Advanced Structures and Measurement Technology Group preparing the NASA developed fiber optic sensor equipment for use in the CCM 

structural tests at LaRC.
42

GRC CENTER FOCUS

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

During 2009, the Glenn Research Center (GRC) engineers, scientists and technicians provided a broad 

range of unique skills to NESC assessments, technical discipline teams and special projects.

Exploration Systems

GRC personnel performed a combination of numerical simulations in connection with sled tests that were 

conducted at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base for 

the Orion Occupant Protection Modeling study. The 

NESC investigated potential crew injuries using experimental 

data and numerical finite element models. The simulations 

were compared to test data generated for frontal, rearward, 

spinal, and lateral impact loadings. The results indicated that 

the Orion seat designs were progressing towards providing 

the necessary crew protection for landings.

GRC engineers and the NESC Resident Engineers supported 

engineering and flight activities for the Max Launch Abort 

System (MLAS). GRC technicians played an integral role in 

the fabrication and assembly of MLAS at the Wallops Flight 

Facility. Different specialized manufacturing teams served rotational assignments at the assembly facility to complete fabrication, assembly, and test operations for the flight article. 

Space Operations

GRC contributed to the orbiter reinforced carbon-carbon 

Coating Adherence Investigation by leading the microscopy and high temperature chemistry efforts, which required 

specialized skills in machining, polishing and metallography. 

Activities were focused on understanding the root cause for 

coating defect formation and spallation at wing leading edge 

joggle locations. GRC worked to develop nondestructive 

procedures to detect and characterize the subsurface defects on-vehicle and to develop criteria for flight safety. 

GRC support to the International Space Station (ISS) Solar 

Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ) anomaly included experimental 

work to mimic the existing conditions of the degraded SARJ 

on-orbit. The unique GRC Vacuum Roller Rig tested rollers 

operating under degraded conditions using the same lubricant that was applied to the ISS SARJ during STS-126. This 

testing provided a durability assessment and established onorbit maintenance schedules. 

Science 

GRC investigated potential failure mechanisms for Reaction 

Wheel Assemblies (RWAs) that provide stability and attitude 

control for space vehicles. The testing characterized the 

metal-to-metal contact in bearings of the Kepler and Fermi 

spacecraft RWAs as a function of speed and temperature. A 

review of the designs suggested the transition from the mixed 

lubrication to the elastohydrodynamic regime might occur at 

higher bearing speeds than previously predicted. The RWA 

manufacturer implemented a number of design changes as a 

result of the investigation.

GRC personnel experienced in tribology and rotordynamics were asked to determine root causes of 

an anomalous vibration encountered during development testing of the motor drive systems for the 

Mars Science Laboratory. GRC analysis and modeling techniques identified the most probable contributions and provided recommendations to the manufacturer on methods to alleviate the vibration. 

Technical Discipline Teams 

GRC supports several Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs) 

and working groups including the Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group, which initiated a composite overwrapped 

pressure vessel stress rupture test program that will provide 

a better understanding of carbon fiber/epoxy stress rupture 

testing and refine current stress rupture reliability models. 

Also supported was the NESC Computational Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) team including evaluation and use of 

computational NDE tools to perform “virtual” inspections of 

stiffeners and weld configurations used in aerospace structures. Support to the Battery Working Group focused on the 

establishment of manufacturing processes and facilities to 

produce materials in Li-Ion cells suitable for long life, lowearth orbit missions. Support to the Structures TDT is to 

provide recommendations for Orion vibroacoustics test and 

analysis.

Kenneth Street of the Tribology and Mechanical Components Branch 

checks initial test conditions for the RWA bearing tests.

Bryan Smith

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

GRC

Beth Opila of the Durability and Protective Coatings Branch investigates 

orbiter reinforced carbon-carbon coatings.
43

CENTER FOCUS GSFC

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

During 2009, more than 130 Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC) specialists supported more than 40 

NESC tasks contributing Electronic, Electrical, and 

Electromechanical parts; spacecraft electronics; 

guidance, navigation and control (GNC); materials; 

mechanical and power components and systems; 

reliability; software; and systems engineering expertise. GSFC’s Express Logistics Carrier (ELC), Hubble 

Space Telescope (HST), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration NPrime and National Polar-orbiting 

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) programs benefited from NESC support. GSFC 

is home for the NASA Technical Fellows for Avionics, 

Electrical Power, GNC, Mechanical Systems, and 

Software.

Exploration Systems

GSFC supported several Constellation Program 

NESC tasks addressing prominent issues such as 

launch pad abort environments, vehicle seat attenuation designs for assuring crew safety and survivability, and the parachute landing system. GSFC and the 

Wallops Flight Facility provided extensive support to NESC’s 

Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) Project, which was

successfully demonstrated in July 2009.

Space Operations

Space Shuttle Program support included Ground Umbilical 

Carrier Plate, Aerosurface ServoAmplifier, Power Contactor 

Assembly, Orbiter Flow Control Valve cracking investigations, and assessing Li-Ion battery risks for astronaut extravehicular activities. International Space Station contributions included “fixes” to solve the solar array “steering” joint

degradation, assessing plasma contactor unit utilization, and support for the carbon dioxide removal assembly investigation. 

Science

GSFC contributed to NESC science mission assessments including Kepler reaction wheel usage, HST 

Science Instrument Command and Data Handling 

anomaly board and Science Data Formatter spare 

review, ELC avionics review, NPOESS Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite mechanism, and JWST 

composite joint failure. 

General

The NESC initiates tasks to address NASA-wide 

problems or potential issues before they create significant impacts. Key support was provided by GSFC 

to the NASA Aerospace Battery Working Group, a 

NASA-wide electrical connector study, a study of the 

design, development, test and evaluation of field programmable microelectronic devices, and multi-layer 

ceramic capacitor low voltage failure phenomena.

Wallops Flight Facility engineers and technicians assemble the MLAS avionics shown installed in the crew module (shown above).

Timothy 

Trenkle

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

GSFC

Steven 

Scott

Former

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

GSFC
44

JPL CENTER FOCUS 

In 2009, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) participated in numerous NESC assessments for the Science, Exploration Systems and Space Operations 

Mission Directorates.

Exploration Systems

JPL is leading the assessment for the NESC Orion 

hydrazine landing roll control assessment. The team 

is evaluating different options for using hydrazine to 

orient the Orion capsule for landing.

The NESC Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group 

(CPVWG) has recently developed a test plan for stress rupture (a Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) 

failure mode) based on needs identified in previous NESC 

assessments. Based on this plan, the NESC has proceeded 

with a stress rupture model development program for which 

JPL provides technical leadership. This effort will require 

testing of both strands and subscale COPVs to provide adequate data and a significant analytical effort that will provide 

an approach that can be used across all NASA programs and 

projects. 

Space Operations

An NESC team used JPL’s 25-foot Space Simulator to create conditions that could cause buckling of the International

Space Station (ISS) solar array masts. Tests were completed 

in October 2008 and data analysis is underway. 

Science

JPL provides leadership and is the host for the NESC CPVWG, 

which is responsible for understanding and communicating issues and risks associated with the current 

state-of-the-art and emerging composite pressure 

vessel technology. The CPVWG is tasked with the 

development of appropriate strategies, approaches, 

and methodologies to minimize technical risk associated with composite pressure vessels and to create/revise technical requirements to mitigate this risk 

for future human and robotic space missions. 

The CPVWG coordinates with programs and projects 

throughout NASA, and has been working proactively to address COPV mechanical modeling concerns, nondestructive 

testing, lifetime assessment issues and standards development. While COPVs have been a priority, the CPVWG is also 

reviewing the state-of-the-art of cryogenic propellant tanks 

to understand the technology limitations and path forward to 

developing the technology.

Robotics Technical Discipline Team (TDT)

The Robotics Operations TDT, led by JPL, is working several 

tasks to advance robotic exploration. The entry, descent and 

landing (EDL) task developed a database that is capturing 

at-risk EDL data to benefit future spacecraft designs. EDL 

experts from GSFC, JPL, JSC, and LaRC are populating the 

database with at-risk EDL data and expanding the base of 

users. The Wireless Avionics task developed a set of longterm requirements, an architectural approach, and a preliminary prototype to prove out the concepts. ARC, GSFC,

JPL and JSC avionics engineers are cooperatively working 

this task. 

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

Ryan Stern (left), of the Advanced Computer Systems and 

Technologies section and Dr. Daniel Winterhalter, NESC 

Chief Scientist, test components of a wireless avionics system.

A JPL-led NESC team is evaluating the 

use of hydrazine roll control to orient 

the Orion capsule for landing.

A section of ISS solar array mast was evaluated in the JPL 

25-ft Space Simulator to create conditions that could 

cause buckling of the masts.

Lloyd Keith

NESC Chief

Engineer at

JPL
45

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER

CENTER FOCUS JSC

NESC personnel at Johnson Space Center (JSC) 

support the safe and successful execution of the 

Space Shuttle Program (SSP), the continuous operation of the International Space Station (ISS), and the 

development of the human-tended spacecraft in the 

Constellation Program (CxP). The NESC provides 

real-time mission support as a member of the SSP 

and ISS Mission Management Teams. Throughout 

2009, NESC personnel were also actively involved 

in technical assessments for SSP, ISS and Constellation and served as non-voting members on major 

technical boards for these Programs. In 2009, the JSC office 

welcomed the NASA Technical Fellow for Passive Thermal 

and the new NESC Deputy Director for Safety. They joined 

the NASA Technical Fellows for Loads and Dynamics and Life 

Support/Active Thermal.

Exploration Systems

The NESC is actively engaged in providing independent assessment at all levels of the CxP. Independent assessments 

of critical issues affecting 

the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Orion, include 

reliability of the parachute 

system, use of hydrazine 

for roll control during landing, and wave models used 

in the prediction of water landing accelerations. 

NESC personnel were also 

involved in activities associated with occupant 

protection during dynamic 

flight phases of the Orion 

spacecraft. The NESC Orion seat attenuation team, 

led by the Mechanical Systems NASA Technical Fellow, refined seat/pallet isolation design concepts developed in 2008. This system can 

be used to mitigate the effects of thrust oscillation and landing accelerations on the crew. A team led by the JSC NESC 

Chief Engineer continued test and analysis efforts to improve 

the capability to model human response to accelerations 

to determine the potential risk of crew injury during landing 

scenarios. The NASA Technical Fellow for Loads and Dynamics led an effort to review and provide recommendations 

associated with the Orion ascent abort loads and supported 

review of Orion pad abort environments. The Life Support/

Active Thermal NASA Technical Fellow led studies of lunar 

dust control designs for Altair and Orion. The NASA Technical Fellows supported the Orion Subsystem Design Reviews 

and the System and Module Review providing comments and 

observations regarding Orion subsystem designs and evaluated the integrated vehicle design to support the Preliminary

Design Review milestone. NESC personnel also 

supported development of the Ares I launch assessing liftoff acoustics and thrust oscillations and issues 

affecting the Ares I-X test vehicle including structural 

loads, drift into ground support systems at launch, 

and mobile launch platform stabilization. 

Space Operations

NESC experts supported the anomaly investigation 

associated with gaseous hydrogen flow control valve 

poppet cracking including evaluation of component 

material to determine potential failure modes, nondestructive 

evaluation techniques for screening poppets prior to and following flight, and computational fluid dynamics analysis of a 

liberated particle. NESC personnel also supported an SSP 

anomaly resolution team to troubleshoot and perform root 

cause investigation of the H2 leaks at the ground umbilical 

carrier plate in support of STS-127. A team of NESC personnel and consultants supported the External Tank Project 

for the investigation of causes of foam losses from the Intertank, Bipod, and liquid oxygen (LO2) Ice Frost Ramps 

during STS-127. Avionics and electrical experts 

provided real-time support 

during STS-125 for the 

Aerosurface Servo Amplifier anomaly investigation. 

The Passive Thermal NASA 

Technical Fellow supported 

the SSP thermal protection 

system damage assessment process during each 

Space Shuttle mission.

NESC discipline experts 

from Guidance, Navigation and Control, Thermal, 

and Mechanical Loads and 

Structural Integrity provided 

a detailed technical review of the impacts from an anomalous 

reboost of the ISS. The NASA Technical Fellows for Life Support/Active Thermal and Passive Thermal provided a recommended course of action to fully determine the cause and 

effects of face sheet damage to one of the ISS radiators. The 

NESC also assessed the readiness for the ISS to support a 

6-person crew and provided technical support for anomalies 

with the Urine Processing Assembly, Water Dispenser, Oxygen Generation Assembly, Waste and Hygiene Compartment, 

and the Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly. In support of ISS 

hardware development, NESC avionics experts conducted 

an independent review of the GSFC-developed ExPRESS Logistics Carrier Avionics built for the ISS. Composite Pressure 

Vessel experts provided independent feedback on the ISS 

Nitrogen/Oxygen Recharge System Composite Overwrapped 

Pressure Vessel concept.

Dr. Nancy 

Currie

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

JSC
46

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

KSC CENTER FOCUS

The NESC is involved in multiple activities and

projects at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). 

Likewise, KSC continues to provide support and

expertise to a wide variety of NESC assessments and 

testing across the Agency. More than 20 KSC civil 

servants and contractors of various disciplines were 

active in NESC assessments and studies this year. 

Also, 25 NASA personnel at KSC are members of the 

NESC’s Technical Discipline Teams (TDTs). These 

discipline expert teams are the primary workforce 

the NESC calls upon when performing assessments

and studies.

Exploration Systems

Max Launch Abort System (MLAS): KSC engineers and 

researchers worked with the NESC on the MLAS Project. 

The MLAS Project, focused on alternate launch abort techniques as risk mitigation for Constellation’s Orion Project, 

was successfully flown at Wallops Island. A unique aspect 

of the MLAS Project is the Resident Engineer (RE) Program.

Engineers that are relatively early in their career were paired up 

with NASA Technical Fellows 

and Apollo design engineers 

to get “hands-on” experience in designing, developing, 

building, and launching a full 

scale launch abort system. 

KSC had two RE’s assigned 

to this Project. Because of the 

success of the RE Program, 

the NESC is continuing the 

Program for another year on 

additional NESC projects. 

Ares I-X: KSC engineers were 

integrally involved in several 

NESC assessments, including Ares I-X lift-off acoustics, rollout loads, and drift and plume impingement 

analysis.

Composite Crew Module (CCM): In addition, KSC 

is supporting the design team of the NESC CCM 

Project, developing expertise and techniques for potential composite use on crewed space vehicles. 

Space Operations

NESC personnel were engaged in several assessments at KSC, including Space Shuttle flame 

trench brick wall integrity, External Tank (ET) ground umbilical leak anomaly, STS-127/128 ET foam loss anomaly, and 

KSC pressure vessel mishap investigation. Likewise, the 

NESC brought Agency experts together to examine several

issues. These included Space Shuttle leading edge structure, spacecraft connector anomaly database, and ExPRESS 

Logistics Carrier avionics. In addition, NESC partnered with 

KSC to assess safe operating distances around the Vehicle

Assembly Building associated with an anticipated increase in 

the amount of solid propellant

segment processing for the 

Ares I and Ares V boosters. This 

study has spurred additional 

safety studies on the subject. 

Science 

The NESC was actively involved with the Hubble Space 

Telescope Science Instruments Command and Data 

Handling issues. KSC engineers supported the NESC efforts and augmented the team 

with necessary expertise.

NESC members from KSC participated in NESC assessment teams of various Ares I-X issues over the last 2 years.

Stephen

Minute

NESC Chief

Engineer

at KSC

Dr. Chris Iannello (left) and Hung Nguyen of NASA discuss connector

issues as part of the spacecraft connector anomaly database study.
47

CENTER FOCUS LaRC

Langley Research Center (LaRC) continues to support the NESC mission to address the Agency’s high 

risk programs and projects. LaRC has contributed 

technical expertise in the areas of structures, materials, nondestructive evaluation, flight sciences, 

fabrication technology, loads and dynamics, computational fluid dynamics, mechanisms, guidance 

navigation and control, flight mechanics, and avionics. LaRC is the host Center for the NESC Director’s 

Office, Principal Engineers Office, Systems Engineering Office, and the Management and Technical Support Office. LaRC is also home to the NASA Technical Fellows for Materials, nondestructive evaluation, 

Structures, Aerosciences and Flight Mechanics.

Exploration Systems

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor: LaRC is providing technical leadership and expertise to the 

NESC team working to develop shell buckling

design factors for metallic and composite launch 

vehicle structures. The NESC Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) Project 

was established to develop 

and validate new analysisbased shell buckling design 

factors for Ares I and Ares 

V metallic and composite 

launch vehicle structures. 

Improved, or less-conservative, knockdown factors 

will enable significant weight savings in these vehicles and will help mitigate some of NASA’s launch 

vehicle development and performance risks.

Composite Crew Module: The NESC Composite 

Crew Module (CCM) Project began testing the CCM 

full-scale test article in the LaRC Combined Loads 

Test System facility. The plan is to statistically test 

the assembly to verify that the analysis models predict the response of the structure under load and 

repeat the tests with internal pressures in the CCM 

up to 30 psi. 

Space Operations

LaRC experts in structures, materials, and NDE supported the NESC investigation of fatigue cracking in 

the Space Shuttle main propulsion system flow control valve (FCV) poppet. The FCV poppet controls 

the flow of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) to the External 

Tank during ascent. A GH2 anomaly was observed 

during STS-126 in November 2008 and the post-flight 

inspection discovered that 

a FCV poppet had a fatigue 

crack that liberated a small 

piece of the flange that controls the flow. A fracture investigation was initiated and 

LaRC developed a polishing procedure and a crack 

inspection procedure that 

used a scanning electron microscope to detect cracks as 

small as 0.001 inches. 

General

For missions requiring entry into an atmosphere, the 

entry, descent, and landing 

(EDL) system is a key driver 

of the mission architecture. 

The NASA Technical Fellow 

for Flight Mechanics organized and led a workshop in 

April 2009 to provide an opportunity for the Orion and 

the Mars Science Laboratory 

Projects to exchange and 

compare their EDL design 

requirements, technical approaches, testing strategies, 

top concerns, and lessons 

learned and to extend their 

collaboration to other technical areas.

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

Clayton

Turner

Former

NESC Chief

Engineer at

LaRC

Walter

Engelund

NESC Chief

Engineer at

LaRC

(Right) CCM test article in the LaRC 

Combined Loads Test System facility.

Harold Clayton polishes a flow control valve poppet in preparation for 

inspection.
48

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

MSFC CENTER FOCUS 

NESC personnel at Marshall Space Flight Center 

(MSFC) continued to support NESC assessments in 

the areas of Exploration Systems and Space Operations. The NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion is 

resident at MSFC.

Exploration Systems

Composite Crew Module (CCM): Technicians from 

the MSFC Test Laboratory travelled to Iuka, Mississippi to install strain gauges on the CCM and support its testing. Engineers from the MSFC Materials 

Laboratory continued their participation in the development 

and building of the CCM.

Max Launch Abort System (MLAS): The MLAS Project successfully launched its flight test article from the Wallops Flight 

Facility on July 8, 2009. The MSFC Propulsion Systems

Department provided ignition overpressure (IOP) predictions 

for the MLAS launch and measured the IOP during launch. 

The worst case prediction for IOP for the MLAS (four motors) had been 2.11 psid, while the values measured at launch 

showed a maximum value of 0.95 psid. The predictions provided a conservative estimate for design. The measured values indicate that there was significant margin, and there was 

no indication from launch data that IOP had any significant 

or unexpected influence on performance. Additionally, the 

measurements provided information for model validation and 

upgrade, specifically when multiple motors are present. The 

MSFC Test Laboratory provided technician support for the 

installation of strain gauges on the fins which were mounted 

on the MLAS boost and coast skirts.

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF): The SBKF testing continued to be supported and conducted by the MSFC 

Test Laboratory during 2009. Significant tests were conducted in September 2009 to measure the response of a 

composite shell structure with both subcritical loads 

and a test to failure. Data gathered from this testing 

is applicable to the Ares I Upper Stage Project and 

is useful to structural analysts in general to enhance 

understanding of design margin in metal and composite tanks and other shell structures. The September series of tests were completed successfully.

Space Operations

Space Shuttle Program: The NESC office at MSFC 

continued to participate in readiness reviews for each Space 

Shuttle flight, including those of the Space Shuttle propulsion 

projects and the Center Director’s review. Some of these 

resulted in involvement in specific focus areas including

External Tank foam loss reviews and an orbiter main propulsion system gaseous hydrogen flow control valve evaluation.

General

MSFC Engineering and the NESC Propulsion Technical Discipline Team are sponsoring work within MSFC Engineering 

to help enhance the Agency propulsion capabilities in three 

areas. Propulsion training and knowledge dissemination are 

being enhanced through the development of a hands-on propulsion learning center. Valve design capability and technology are being improved through a throttling cavitating venturi 

valve design project. Also, powder metallurgy manufacturing 

is being used to build a turbopump impeller, which will be 

tested at MSFC. 

Other work within MSFC Engineering that is supported by 

the NESC includes the Composite Pressure Vessel Working 

Group, the annual Battery Workshop, and an independent

review of wide-range pumps for the Surface Analysis at Mars 

Instrument.

Technicians from the MSFC Test Laboratory installed strain gauges on the 

CCM and supported testing.

Ares V-style shell undergoing testing at MSFC’s Shell Buckling facility.

Dr. Charles 

Schafer

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

MSFC
49

STENNIS SPACE CENTER

CENTER FOCUS SSC

Stennis Space Center (SSC) engineers and scientists 

carried out a variety of NESC sponsored activities including continued support for the A3 test stand, thermal analysis and ground measurements for the Max 

Launch Abort System (MLAS), involvement in the 

Wireless Connections in Space Project, and technology advancement and infusion for the Exploration 

Systems and Space Operations Mission Directorates. Activities employed the unique capabilities and 

facilities available at SSC.

Exploration Systems

A3 Test Stand: SSC is building a new test stand, A3, to enable rocket engine testing in simulated altitude conditions. 

NESC is working on two issues for A3. The first concerns the 

need for a deeper understanding of the “un-start” condition 

of the diffuser. The Chemical Steam Generators (CSGs) that 

generate steam also produce high concentrations of oxygen 

that enter the diffuser and react with unburned hydrogen 

from the J-2X engine, thus creating an “un-start” condition 

that reduces the flow of steam. This combustion process can 

reduce the effectiveness of the diffuser and produce 

damaging temperatures and pressures. The second 

issue is a vibration analysis of the A3 test stand. The 

NESC is providing an independent assessment of 

this issue. 

Max Launch Abort System (MLAS): The SSC team 

assisted in predicting thermal loading from the MK 70 

solid rocket motors used for the MLAS vehicle. The 

objective of the transient thermal analyses was to 

determine whether the thermal protection of vehicle 

structures was adequate for the test duration. The loading 

scenarios included convection due to plume reflection off the 

ground during the beginning of the launch and radiation from 

the rocket motors and plume throughout the launch. Radiation values were predicted analytically by MSFC engineers 

and validated with physical testing by the SSC technology 

group at WSTF, while convection values were calculated at 

SSC from the results of a computational fluid dynamics analysis. The results of the thermal analysis were used to determine what areas required thermal protection. In one specific 

case (the aft facing surface of the boost ring), the analysis 

showed the installed cork layer was not necessary and could 

be removed. 

A second thermal analysis predicted motor temperatures 

based on ambient conditions prior to the launch to support go/no-go decision criteria. Analysis of the solid rocket 

motors under ambient conditions and various wind speeds 

showed the propellant temperature matching between the 

motors would remain within acceptable flight-rule temperature bounds.

SSC provided additional support to MLAS by developing an 

ambient temperature monitoring system to provide input to 

the solid rocket motor thermal model. Temperature measurements began several days before launch and were completed 

at L-6 hours.

Space Operations

Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM): The 

NESC funded a pilot ISHM implementation to increase technical readiness level and functional capability level of this 

technology. This activity was intended to mitigate complexity 

issues in operating A3, where up to 27 CSGs will be operating 

simultaneously. The ISHM pilot implementation consisted of 

a computer in the E-2 test control room interfaced with sensor data. Prior to being passed to the ISHM model, data was 

first processed within a Virtual Intelligent Sensor Environment 

to capture anomaly indicators (e.g., flat sensor, design limit 

violations, and excessive noise). The ISHM model was created using the ISHM Model Building Toolkit created by SSC. 

The system supports incremental augmentation of capabilities such as upgrades to anomaly detection and root cause 

analysis. Plans are being developed to scale up this successful pilot to perform ISHM on the CSG Skid Test Program, 

which consists of three CSGs operated in parallel. Mark Turowski (left) and Jonathan Morris demonstrate the ISHM system.

Michael 

Smiles

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

SSC

Rebecca Junell performed a thermal analysis on the MLAS boost skirt.
50

WHITE SANDS TEST FACILITY

WSTF WSTFCENTER FOCUS

In 2009, White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) scientists 

and engineers continued to assist the NESC with important projects and issues related to Exploration Systems and Space Operations. Support largely involved 

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) 

testing, modeling and data collection; pyrotechnic device analysis and testing; and technical support for the 

Propulsion and Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Technical Discipline Teams, and the Composite Pressure 

Vessel Working Group (CPVWG).

General

Carbon Stress Rupture Data Collection: WSTF has developed a specialized library for the CPVWG, involving collection of applicable stress rupture and static strength data for 

strands, fibers, and vessels. The library currently contains 

more than 800 technical reports, journal articles, conference 

papers, reference manuals, abstracts, dissertations, unpublished reports, datasets, and other types of technical literature. Data are still sought from valid sources. 

Composite Pressure Vessel Nondestructive Evaluation 

(NDE) Development: In coordination with the CPVWG, WSTF 

is developing sensitive NDE methods and ASTM standards for 

quantitative NDE for COPVs. For example, teamwork between 

the CPVWG and NASA NDE Working Group has produced a 

Laser Profilometer for application to small COPVs. The new 

system maps the interior of vessels to within ~0.002 inches 

and is currently providing precise data to both the 

NESC Autofrettage and Plastically Responding Liner 

Test Projects. A second generation version of the Laser Profilometer has been designed to evaluate larger 

diameter cylindrical COPVs with ellipsoidal ends. Fabrication of this unit is planned to begin in early FY10. 

Acoustic emission is also being applied and has 

shown particular promise for detecting and monitoring the stress-wave propagation produced by actively 

growing defects in COPV composite overwraps. 

Carbon COPV Modeling of Autofrettage Response: Longterm reliability of COPVs remains uncertain. Although design, 

test, and manufacturing procedures are well developed, additional data are needed due to the complexity of the structures. One current focus is accurate characterization of vessel 

response to the manufacturing autofrettage processes and to 

use this data to adjust current COPV models to improve numerical analysis capabilities. To obtain needed data, T1000 

and IM7 vessels were separately modeled with state-of-theart finite element analysis techniques at GRC and WSTF, and 

then tested at WSTF. During test, comprehensive real-time 

instrumentation first characterized the liner response after 

wrapping, then characterized the response during autofrettage, and then characterized vessel behavior during postautofrettage pressure cycles. The Laser Profilometer was 

applied before and after autofrettage and precisely indicated 

areas of deformation.

Dr. Nancy 

Currie

NESC Chief

Engineer at 

JSC and

WSTF

(Above) Tim Gallus (left), MEI Technologies, and Ralph Lucero (right),

Jacobs Technology, team up to map the interior of COPVs used in the NESC 

CPVWG Autofrettage Test Project.

(Right) WSTF Mechanical Technician Don Saunders (with cap) and WSTF Electrical Technician Robert Browning (on floor) support COPV system assembly.

CENTER FOCUS
Ares I-X rolls to the launch pad. The NESC assisted the 

Project in resolving several issues over the past 24 months.
52

NESC Director’s Award

Honors individuals who take personal 

accountability and ownership in initiating clear and open communication 

on diverse and controversial issues. A 

key component of this award is based 

on the process of challenging engineering truths.

Elizabeth D. Holleman

In recognition of technical excellence in 

the professional and persistent pursuit 

of the technical risks associated with 

the Orbiter Gaseous Hydrogen Flow 

Control Valve poppet cracking prior to 

the flight of STS-119.

Rene Ortega

In recognition of technical excellence in 

the professional and persistent pursuit 

of the technical risks associated with 

the Orbiter Gaseous Hydrogen Flow 

Control Valve poppet cracking prior to 

the flight of STS-119.

NESC Leadership Award

Honors individuals who have had a 

pronounced effect upon the technical 

activities of the NESC.

Doyle T. Arboneaux

In recognition of outstanding leadership 

and production management of hardware fabrication in support of the Max 

Launch Abort System.

Charles H. Campbell

In recognition of outstanding leadership 

in acquiring unprecedented boundary 

layer transition measurements during 

the STS-119 mission using the Space 

Shuttle Orbiter as a flight test article.

Brian A. Hall

In recognition of outstanding leadership as the Vehicle Manager for the 

successful Max Launch Abort System 

Flight Demonstration Test.

Thomas J. Horvath

In recognition of outstanding leadership in identifying, characterizing, and 

employing unique thermal imaging 

techniques to observe Space Shuttle 

boundary layer transition during the 

STS-119 and STS-125 missions.

Jeffrey D. Jordan

In recognition of outstanding leadership and management of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center tasks on 

the ATK TEAMS contract.

Tod E. Palm

In recognition of outstanding leadership of the Max Launch Abort System 

Structures Team.

Peter A. Parker

In recognition of outstanding leadership 

for broad acceptance of best-practice 

experimental planning, execution and 

analysis through use of established, efficient design of experiments methods.

Steven W. Summitt

In recognition of outstanding leadership of the design, manufacturing, and 

test deliverables for the Composite 

Crew Module Project.

Stephen A. Williams

In recognition of outstanding leadership of the touch labor and facility resources for the Composite Crew Module Project.

HONOR AWARDS

From left (back row): Richard Schwartz (ATK); Thomas Horvath (LaRC); Ralph Roe, Jr. (NESC Director/Presenter); Tod Palm (Northrop Grumman); Michael Bay (independent consultant); Doyle Arboneaux (LaRC); Steven Summitt (ATK); Rene Ortega (MSFC); Gerald Kinder (Boeing); Charles Campbell 

(JSC); Dawson Vincent (Northrop Grumman); Peter Parker (LaRC); Tim Wilson (NESC Deputy Director/Presenter); Fred Hall (ATK); Stephen Williams (ATK).

From left (front row): Donald Roth (GRC); Patrick Forrester (NESC Chief Astronaut/Presenter); Jeffrey Jordan (ATK); Ian Batchelder (Lockheed Martin); Gary 

Dittemore (JSC); Brian Hall (WFF); Hung Pham (JPL); Timothy Cannella (LaRC); Linda Facto (JPL); Elizabeth Holleman (MSFC); John Aldrin (independent 

consultant). Not pictured: Mark Hilburger (LaRC) and Mitchell Davis (NESC).
53

NESC Engineering

Excellence Award

Honors individual accomplishments of 

NESC-job related tasks of such magnitude and merit as to deserve special recognition.

John C. Aldrin

In recognition of exceptional technical 

support to the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Computational Nondestructive Evaluation Tool Assessment 

Team.

P. Michael Bay

In recognition of exceptional technical 

support to the Orion Integrated Design 

Optimization Team.

Mark W. Hilburger

In recognition of exceptional engineering excellence in the development of a 

comprehensive plan to improve Shell 

Buckling Knockdown Factors for the 

Constellation Program.

Donald J. Roth

In recognition of exceptional technical 

support to the NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center Nondestructive Evaluation Tool Assessment Team.

Dawson D. Vincent

In recognition of engineering excellence 

in the development and implementation of the out of autoclave splice for 

the Composite Crew Module Project.

NESC Administrative

Excellence Award

This award honors individual accomplishments or contributions that contribute 

substantially to support NESC’s mission.

Ian H. Batchelder

In recognition of exceptional information technology and system administration support to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center.

NESC Group

Achievement Award

Honors a group of employees comprised of government and non-government personnel for outstanding 

accomplishment through the coordination of individual efforts that have 

contributed substantially to the accomplishment of the NESC’s mission.

Composite Crew Module Fabrication Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in manufacturing excellence on 

the Composite Crew Module Project 

(award accepted by Fred Hall on behalf 

of the team).

DC/DC Converter Guidelines 

Development Team

In recognition of outstanding efforts 

in testing hybrid DC to DC converters 

for space applications and developing 

a guidelines document on how to use 

them effectively (award accepted by 

Linda Facto on behalf of the team).

Hypersonic Thermodynamic Infrared Measurements (HYTHIRM) 

Team

In recognition of outstanding technical 

contributions in remote thermal and 

visual imaging as demonstrated during the STS-119 and STS-125 Space 

Shuttle missions and the Max Launch 

Abort System test flight (award accepted by Richard Schwartz on behalf 

of the team).

International Space Station Solar 

Array Thermal Vacuum Test Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions to the successful testing of 

the International Space Station Solar 

Array Mast in JPL’s Space Simulator 

Facility (award accepted by Hung Pham 

on behalf of the team). 

Langley Research Center Office 

of Procurement Support Team

In recognition of exceptional support to 

the NASA Engineering and Safety Center mission through excellence in acquisition (award accepted by Timothy 

Cannella on behalf of the team).

Max Launch Abort System Resident Engineer Team

In recognition of exceptional efforts 

as part of the Resident Engineer Program for the Max Launch Abort System Flight Demonstration Test (award 

accepted by Gary Dittemore on behalf 

of the team).

Max Launch Abort System Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions to the design, development and 

flight test of the Max Launch Abort 

System (award accepted by Brian Hall 

on behalf of the team).

Orbiter Boundary Layer Transition Flight Experiment Team

In recognition of outstanding contributions in developing and conducting a 

hypersonic boundary layer transition 

experiment using the Space Shuttle 

Orbiter as a flight test vehicle during 

STS-119 re-entry (award accepted by 

Gerald Kinder on behalf of the team).

NESC Special

Recognition Award

Honors employees who have provided 

dedicated service to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center.

Mitchell L. Davis

In recognition of outstanding leadership and engineering excellence as the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s 

NASA Technical Fellow for Avionics.

HONOR AWARDS

In memoriam

Mr. Glenn Tsuyuki, a member of the NESC’s Crew Exploration Vehicle Smart Buyer Design Team 

and more recently a member of the Passive Thermal Technical Discipline Team, passed away in July 

2009. He will be missed and remembered for his significant contributions to the NESC and the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory.
54

BIOGRAPHIES

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NESC Director

Mr. Ralph R. Roe, Jr. serves as NESC’s Director at 

Langley Research Center (LaRC). Mr. Roe has over 

26 years of experience in human space flight program 

management, technical management, and test engineering. Mr. Roe previously held several key positions in the Space 

Shuttle Program, including Vehicle Engineering Manager, Launch Director, and Kennedy Space Center Engineering Director.

Timmy R. Wilson

NESC Deputy Director

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

Wilson was formerly the NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Prior to joining NESC, 

Mr. Wilson served as Deputy Chief Engineer for Space 

Shuttle Processing at KSC. Mr. Wilson has over 28 years of engineering 

and management experience supporting the Space Shuttle Program.

Michael P. Blythe

NESC Deputy Director for Safety

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

Safety and is resident at the Johnson Space Center 

(JSC). Prior to joining the NESC, Mr. Blythe served as 

the Acting Assistant Associate Administrator in the Office of the Administrator at NASA HQ. Mr. Blythe came to the Office of 

the Administrator from the Office of Chief Engineer where he served as 

the Director for the Engineering and Program/Project Management Division. In this capacity, he was responsible for establishing and implementing Agency engineering and program/project management policy, 

procedures and processes to improve the efficiency and success of 

NASA’s investments.

Dr. Daniel Winterhalter

Chief Scientist

Dr. Daniel Winterhalter is NESC’s Chief Scientist and 

is resident at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

Dr. Winterhalter has over 31 years of experience as a 

research scientist at JPL. His research interests include the spatial evolution of the solar wind into the outer reaches of 

the heliosphere, as well as its interaction with and influence on planetary environments. In addition, as a member of several flight teams, 

he has been intimately involved with the planning, launching, and operation of complex spacecraft and space science missions.

Dawn M. Schaible

Manager, Systems Engineering Office

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

Engineering Office at Langley Research Center (LaRC). 

Prior to joining NESC, Ms. Schaible worked in the International Space Station/Payload Processing Directorate 

at Kennedy Space Center. Ms. Schaible has over 22 years of experience in systems engineering, integration, and ground processing for 

the Space Shuttle and International Space Station Programs.

Daniel J. Tenney

Manager, Management and Technical

Support Office

Mr. Daniel J. Tenney is Manager of NESC’s Management and Technical Support Office at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Prior to joining the NESC, Mr. 

Tenney served as the Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Systems at 

LaRC where he managed over 30 information systems. Mr. Tenney 

has 20 years of professional financial, accounting, and systems experience at NASA.

Clinton H. Cragg

NESC Principal Engineer

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

at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Mr. Cragg came 

to NESC after retiring from the U.S. Navy. Mr. Cragg 

served as the Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. Ohio 

and later as the Chief of Current Operations, U.S. European Command. 

Mr. Cragg has over 31 years of experience in supervision, command, 

and ship-borne nuclear safety.

Steven J. Gentz

NESC Principal Engineer

Mr. Steven J. Gentz is a Principal Engineer with NESC 

at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Mr. Gentz joined 

NESC from the Marshall Space Flight Center with over 

26 years of experience involving numerous NASA, Department of Defense, and industry failure analyses and incident investigations, including Challenger, Columbia, Tethered Satellite System, and 

the TWA 800 Accident Investigations.

Wayne R. Frazier

NASA Headquarters Senior SMA

Integration Manager

Mr. Wayne R. Frazier currently serves as Senior Safety 

and Mission Assurance Manager in the Office of Safety 

and Mission Assurance (OSMA), where he is assigned 

as the Liaison Officer to NESC, the Office of the Chief Engineer, the 

Software Independent Verification and Validation Facility in West Virginia, and other remote activities of OSMA. He was formerly Manager 

of System Safety in the OSMA at NASA Headquarters and has over 34 

years of experience in System Safety, Propulsion and Explosive Safety, 

Mishap Investigation, Range Safety, Pressure Systems, Crane Safety 

and Orbital Debris Mitigation.

Core Leadership Team

NESC Principal Engineers

NASA Headquarters Liaison

Continued on next page...
55

BIOGRAPHIES

Dr. Nancy J. Currie

NESC Chief Engineer

Dr. Nancy J. Currie is NESC’s Chief Engineer at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Dr. Currie came to the NESC 

from JSC, where she served as the Deputy Director 

of the Engineering Directorate. Dr. Currie has over 21 

years of expertise in robotics and human factors engineering. Selected 

as an astronaut in 1990, Dr. Currie is a veteran of four Space Shuttle 

missions and has accrued 1000 hours in space.

Walter C. Engelund

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Walter C. Engelund is NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Langley Research Center (LaRC). Mr. Engelund came 

to the NESC from LaRC, where he served as the Head 

of the Atmospheric Flight and Entry Systems Branch. 

Mr. Engelund has over 20 years of experience as a recognized expert in launch and entry vehicle aerodynamics, atmospheric 

flight dynamics and hypersonic flight systems.

R. Lloyd Keith

NESC Chief Engineer

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

the Center Chief Engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Mr. Keith has over 32 years of experience 

working in both technical and managerial positions. 

Mr. Keith has supported a number of flight projects including the Mars 

Pathfinder Project, SeaWinds, Stardust, Mars ’98, New Millennium 

Deep Space 1, and the Flight Hardware Logistics Program.

Dr. Michael G. Gilbert

NESC Principal Engineer

Dr. Michael G. Gilbert is a Principal Engineer with 

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

was formerly the NESC Chief Engineer at LaRC. Before joining NESC, he was Head of the LaRC Systems 

Management Office. Dr. Gilbert has over 31 years of engineering, research, and management experience with aircraft, missile, spacecraft, 

Space Shuttle, and International Space Station programs.

Michael T. Kirsch

NESC Principal Engineer

Mr. Michael T. Kirsch is a Principal Engineer with 

NESC at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Mr. 

Kirsch joined NESC from the NASA’s White Sands 

Test Facility (WSTF) where he served as the Deputy 

Manager responsible for planning and directing developmental and 

operational tests of spacecraft propulsion systems and related subsystems. Mr. Kirsch has over 20 years of experience in managing 

projects and test facilities.

Nans Kunz

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Nans Kunz is NESC’s Chief Engineer at Ames Research Center (ARC). Mr. Kunz came to the NESC from 

the Systems Engineering Division at ARC. Mr. Kunz 

has over 31 years of engineering experience leading 

and managing NASA programs and projects including serving as the 

Chief Engineer of the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy 

(SOFIA) Project.

Stephen A. Minute

NESC Chief Engineer

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

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

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

Space Shuttle Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance 

Division. Mr. Minute has over 25 years of engineering and management experience in the Space Shuttle and International Space Station 

Programs.

Dr. Tina L. Panontin

NESC Chief Engineer

Dr. Tina L. Panontin is NESC’s former Chief Engineer at 

Ames Research Center (ARC). She continues to serve 

as the ARC Chief Engineer and formerly served as the 

Chief of the Failure Analysis and Materials Group at 

ARC. Dr. Panontin has over 26 years of experience in 

solving complex problems, assessing the health of systems and organizations, investigating anomalies and failures, and developing tools that 

support systems engineering processes. 

Dr. Charles F. Schafer

NESC Chief Engineer

Dr. Charles F. Schafer is NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Dr. Schafer 

came to the NESC from MSFC where he served as the 

Deputy Manager of the Propulsion Research Center of 

the Science and Technology Directorate. Dr. Schafer 

has over 43 years of experience in leading research and technology 

activities in advanced earth-to-orbit and in-space propulsion, including work in nuclear propulsion, plasma propulsion, advanced chemical 

propulsion, and new chemical propellant development.

Steven S. Scott

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Steven S. Scott is NESC’s former Chief Engineer 

at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). He continues to serve as the GSFC Chief Engineer. Mr. Scott 

formerly served as the NESC Discipline Expert (now 

called NASA Technical Fellow) for Software. Mr. Scott 

has over 25 years experience in systems engineering and satellite software engineering.

Continued on next page...

NESC Principal Engineers Continued

NESC Chief Engineers
56

NESC Chief Engineers Continued NASA Technical Fellows

BIOGRAPHIES

Michael D. Smiles

NESC Chief Engineer

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

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

NESC from SSC, where he served as the Safety and 

Mission Assurance (S&MA) Manager. Mr. Smiles has 

over 24 years of management and technical experience with NASA at SSC and Marshall Space Flight Center. 

Bryan K. Smith

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Bryan K. Smith is NESC’s Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center (GRC). Mr. Smith joined the NESC 

from GRC, where he served as Deputy Chief of the 

Power and In-Space Propulsion Division and Chief of 

the Space Flight Project Office. Mr. Smith has over 22 

years of engineering and management experience leading the development of space flight systems.

Dr. James F. Stewart

NESC Chief Engineer

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

Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). Dr. Stewart 

joined the NESC from DFRC where he served as the 

Dryden Exploration Mission Director. Dr. Stewart has 

over 43 years of management and technical experience leading missile 

and aircraft programs.

Timothy G. Trenkle

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Timothy G. Trenkle is NESC’s Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Trenkle 

joined the NESC from GSFC, where he has over 17 

years of technical experience serving as the technical lead for a number of flight programs and technical 

assignments including serving as the Chief Engineer for the National 

Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) 

Preparatory Project (NPP). 

Clayton P. Turner

NESC Chief Engineer

Mr. Clayton P. Turner is NESC’s former Chief Engineer 

at Langley Research Center (LaRC). He continues to 

serve as LaRC’s Chief Engineer. He has over 19 years 

of management and technical experience including 

serving as the technical/programmatic lead for several 

projects including the Gas Permeable Polymer Materials (GPPM) Project and the Gas and Aerosol Monitoring Sensorcraft (GAMS) Project. 

Michael L. Aguilar

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Michael L. Aguilar is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Software and is resident at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Aguilar joined the NESC from GSFC 

where he served as the James Webb Space Telescope 

(JWST) Instrument Software Manager. Mr. Aguilar has over 33 years of 

experience on embedded software development.

Mitchell L. Davis

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Mitchell L. Davis is the former NASA Technical Fellow for Avionics and was resident at Goddard Space 

Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Davis was the Chief Engineer of the Electrical Systems Branch at GSFC prior 

to joining the NESC. Mr. Davis has over 27 years of 

experience in power and avionics. In September 2009, Mr. Davis accepted a position as the Chief Avionics Systems Engineer in the Electrical Engineering Division at GSFC.

Cornelius J. Dennehy

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Cornelius J. Dennehy is the NASA Technical Fellow for Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC) systems and is resident at Goddard Space Fight Center 

(GSFC). Mr. Dennehy came to NESC from the Mission Engineering and Systems Analysis Division at GSFC, where he 

served as the Division’s Assistant Chief for Technology. Mr. Dennehy 

has over 29 years of experience in the architecture, design, development, integration, and operation of GNC systems, and space platforms 

for communications, defense, remote sensing, and scientific mission 

applications.

Roberto Garcia

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Roberto Garcia is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion and is resident at Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC). Mr. Garcia came to NESC from the 

Solid Propulsion Systems Division where he served as 

Division Chief. Mr. Garcia has over 18 years of experience in performing aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and engine system design and analysis of rocket propulsion.

Oscar Gonzalez

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Oscar Gonzalez is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Avionics and is resident at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Gonzalez came to the NESC from GSFC 

where he served as the International Space Station/Express Logistic Carrier (ELC) Avionics Systems Manager. Mr. Gonzalez 

has over 31 years of NASA and private industry experience where he 

has held a variety of critical leadership roles in power electronics, electrical systems, instrument systems, and avionics systems. 

Continued on next page...
57

BIOGRAPHIES

NASA Technical Fellows Continued

Denney J. Keys

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Denney J. Keys is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Electrical Power and is resident at Goddard Space 

Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Keys served as the Lead 

Power Systems Engineer in the Power Systems Branch 

at GSFC before joining the NESC. Mr. Keys has over 29 years of private 

industry and NASA experience with electrical power systems.

Dr. Curtis E. Larsen

NASA Technical Fellow

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

Loads and Dynamics and is resident at Johnson Space 

Center (JSC). Prior to joining the NESC, Dr. Larsen was 

the Technical Discipline Manager for Cargo Integration 

Structures in the Space Shuttle Program’s Flight Operations and Integration Office. Dr. Larsen has over 29 years of engineering experience 

with expertise in stochastic structural dynamics, structural safety, and 

probabilistic engineering applications.

Daniel G. Murri

NASA Technical Fellow

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

Flight Mechanics and is resident at Langley Research 

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

Dynamics Branch at LaRC before joining the NESC. 

He has over 28 years of engineering experience conducting numerous wind-tunnel, simulation, flight-test, and theoretical studies in the 

exploration of new technology concepts and in support of aircraft development programs.

Dr. Cynthia H. Null

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Cynthia H. Null is the NASA Technical Fellow for Human Factors and is resident at Ames Research Center 

(ARC). Before joining the NESC, Dr. Null was a scientist 

in the Human Factors Division and Deputy Program 

Manager of the Space Human Factors Engineering Project. Dr. Null has 

23 years of experience lecturing on Human Factors, and another 17 

years of experience in Human Factors applied to NASA programs.

Joseph W. Pellicciotti

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Joseph W. Pellicciotti is the NASA Technical 

Fellow for Mechanical Systems and is resident at 

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Mr. Pellicciotti served as the Chief Engineer for the GSFC 

Mechanical Systems Division before joining the NESC. Mr. Pellicciotti 

has over 21 years of combined private industry and NASA experience 

designing structure and mechanisms for commercial, military, and civil 

spacecraft.

Dr. Robert S. Piascik

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. Robert S. Piascik is the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Materials and is resident at Langley Research Center 

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

Mechanics of Materials Branch and the Metals and 

Thermal Structures Branch, where he served as a Senior Materials Scientist. Dr. Piascik has over 25 years of experience in the commercial 

nuclear power industry and over 16 years of experience in basic and 

applied materials research for several NASA programs.

Dr. William H. Prosser

NASA Technical Fellow

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

Nondestructive Evaluation and is resident at Langley 

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

from the Nondestructive Evaluation Sciences Branch 

at LaRC. Dr. Prosser has over 22 years of experience in the field of 

ultrasonic and acoustic emission sensing techniques.

Dr. Ivatury S. Raju

NASA Technical Fellow

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

Structures and is resident at Langley Research Center (LaRC). Dr. Raju was the Senior Technologist in the 

LaRC Structures and Materials Competency prior to 

joining the NESC. Dr. Raju has over 34 years of experience in structures, structural mechanics, and structural integrity. 

Steven L. Rickman

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Steven L. Rickman is the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Passive Thermal and is resident at Johnson Space 

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

JSC’s Thermal Design Branch where he served as the 

Chief. Mr. Rickman has over 24 years of management and technical 

experience in passive thermal control.

Henry A. Rotter

NASA Technical Fellow

Mr. Henry (Hank) A. Rotter is the NASA Technical Fellow for Life Support/Active Thermal and is resident at 

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

NESC from the JSC Crew and Thermal Systems Division and the Space Launch Initiative Program, where he was Engineering Manager and the Orbital Space Plane Team Leader for life support and active thermal control teams. Mr. Rotter has over 42 years of 

life support and active thermal control systems experience during the 

Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Orbital Space Plane Programs.

Dr. David M. Schuster

NASA Technical Fellow

Dr. David M. Schuster is the NASA Technical Fellow for Aerosciences and is resident at Langley 

Research Center (LaRC). Prior to joining the 

NESC, Dr. Schuster was the Branch Head for the 

Structural and Thermal Systems Branch in the 

Systems Engineering Directorate. Dr. Schuster has over 31 years of 

experience in the aerospace industry with expertise in aeroelasticity 

and integrated aerodynamic analysis.
58

Whereabouts of former NESC personnel

ALUMNI

Frank H. Bauer

NESC Discipline Expert for Guidance Navigation and Control (2003 – 2004) Currently serving as the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Chief Engineer at NASA HQ

 

J. Larry Crawford

NESC Deputy Director for Safety (2003 – 2004) 

Left NESC to become Director of Safety and 

Mission Assurance at Kennedy Space Center 

(KSC) and has since retired

 

Dr. Charles J. Camarda

NESC Deputy Director for Advanced Projects 

(2006 – 2009) Left the NESC to become Senior 

Advisor for Innovation in the Office of the Chief 

Engineer at NASA HQ

 

Kenneth D. Cameron

NESC Deputy Director for Safety (2005 – 

2008) Left the NESC to accept a position with 

Northrop Grumman

 

Steven F. Cash

NESC Chief Engineer at Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC) (2005) Currently the Manager, 

Space Shuttle Propulsion Office at MSFC

 

Derrick J. Cheston

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn Research Center (2003 – 2007) Left the NESC to participate 

in the Senior Executive Service Candidate

Development Program (SESCDP) 

 

Dennis B. Dillman

NESC Chief Engineer at NASA Headquarters 

(2005 – 2008) Currently an Engineer in the 

Science Mission Directorate at NASA HQ

 

Freddie Douglas, III

NESC Chief Engineer at Stennis Space Center (SSC) (2007 – 2008) Currently the Manager,

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance at SSC

 

Patricia L. Dunnington

Manager, Management and Technical Support 

Office (2006 – 2008) Retired

 

Dr. Michael S. Freeman

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames Research Center 

(ARC) (2003 – 2004) Retired

 

T. Randy Galloway

NESC Chief Engineer at Stennis Space Center 

(SSC) (2003 – 2004) Currently the Director of 

the Engineering and Test Directorate at SSC

 

Dr. Edward R. Generazio

NESC Discipline Expert for Nondestructive 

Evaluation (2003 – 2005) Currently a Senior 

Research Engineer, Research & Technology

Directorate, LaRC

 

Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech

NESC Deputy Director (2003 – 2005) Currently 

the Associate Director at Stennis Space Center

 

Michael Hagopian

NESC Chief Engineer at Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC) (2003 – 2007) Currently the 

Chief Engineer in the Engineering Directorate 

at GSFC

 

David A. Hamilton

NESC Chief Engineer at Johnson Space Center 

(JSC) (2003 – 2007) Retired

 

Dr. Charles E. Harris

NESC Principal Engineer (2003 – 2006)

Currently the Director, Research & Technology

Directorate at LaRC

 

Dr. Steven A. Hawley

NESC Chief Astronaut (2003 – 2004) Left the 

NESC to become the Director of Astromaterials 

Research and Exploration Science at Johnson 

Space Center (JSC) and has since retired

 

Marc S. Hollander

Manager, Management and Technical Support 

Office (2005 – 2006) Left the NESC to accept a 

position as the Associate Director for Management, National Institutes of Health

 

George D. Hopson

NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion (2003 - 

2007) Retired

 

Keith L. Hudkins

NASA Headquarters Office of the Chief Engineer Representative (2003 – 2007) Retired

 

Danny D. Johnston

NESC Chief Engineer at Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC) (2003 – 2004) Left the NESC 

to work a detailed assignment at MSFC in the 

NASA Chief Engineer’s Office and has since 

retired

 

Michael W. Kehoe

NESC Chief Engineer at Dryden Flight Research 

Center (DFRC) (2003 – 2005) Left the NESC to 

become the DFRC Liaison in the Crew Exploration Vehicle Flight Test Office at JSC and has 

since retired

 

Robert A. Kichak

NESC Discipline Expert for Power and Avionics (2003 – 2007) Retired. Serving as a contract 

consultant to NASA/NESC.

 

Dr. Dean A. Kontinos

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames Research Center 

(ARC) (2006 – 2007) Currently an Engineer in 

the Office of the Chief Engineer at ARC

 

Julie A. Kramer White

NESC Discipline Expert for Mechanical Analysis (2003 – 2006) Currently the Chief Engineer, 

Crew Exploration Vehicle Office at JSC

 

Steven G. Labbe

NESC Discipline Expert for Flight Sciences 

(2003 – 2006) Currently the Chief Engineer, 

Constellation Program Office at JSC

 

Matthew R. Landano

NESC Chief Engineer at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) (2003 – 2004) Returned to his assignment at JPL as the Director of Office of Safety 

and Mission Success

 

David S. Leckrone

NESC Chief Scientist (2003 – 2006) Currently 

the Senior Project Scientist for the Hubble 

Space Telescope at GSFC

 

John P. McManamen

NASA Technical Fellow for Mechanical Systems (2003 – 2007) Currently the Chief

Engineer, Space Shuttle Program Office at JSC

 

Brian K. Muirhead

NESC Chief Engineer at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) (2005 – 2007) Currently the Program 

Systems Engineer in the Constellation Program’s Program Systems Engineering Office 

at JSC

 

Dr. Paul M. Munafo

NESC Deputy Director (2003 – 2004) Left the 

NESC to become the Assistant Director for 

Safety and Engineering at Marshall Space 

Flight Center (MSFC) and has since retired

 

Stan C. Newberry

Manager of NESC’s Management and Technical Support Office (2003 – 2004) Left NESC to 

become the Deputy Center Director at Ames 

Research Center (ARC) and has since left 

NASA to accept a position at DoD

 

Dr. Shamim A. Rahman

NESC Chief Engineer at Stennis Space Center 

(2005 – 2006) Currently the Deputy Director of 

the Engineering and Test Directorate at SSC

 

Jerry L. Ross

NESC Chief Astronaut (2004 – 2006) Currently 

the Chief of the Vehicle Integration Test Office 

at JSC

 

John E. Tinsley

NASA Headquarters Senior Safety and Mission 

Assurance Manager for NESC (2003 – 2004) 

Left NESC to become the Director of the Mission Support Division at NASA Headquarters 

and has since left NASA to accept a position 

with Northrop Grumman
59

PUBLICATIONS

NESC Publications 2009

1. Eight-Foot High Temperature Tunnel (HTT) Oxygen Storage Pressure Vessel Inspection Requirements .............................................. TM-2008-215316

2. Stardust Hypervelocity Entry Observing Campaign Support ................................................................................................................. TM-2009-215354

3. STS-114 Engine Cut-off Sensor Anomaly Consultation ......................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215567

4. KSC Pad B Catenary Capability Analysis and Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM) Support ................................................................. TM-2009-215568

5. Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Avionics Integration Laboratory (CAIL) Independent Analysis ............................................................ TM-2009-215569

6. GH2 Vent Arm Behavior Prediction Model Review ................................................................................................................................. TM-2009-215570

7. Integrated Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessel (COPV) Technical Issues Summary .......................................................................... TM-2009-215571

8. ISS External TV Camera Shutdown Investigation ................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215572

9. Review of a Test Anomaly Resulting in Contamination of Elements of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Spacecraft .................... TM-2009-215573

10. Review of the Test Plan to Update Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle

 Assembly Building (VAB) Propellant Safety Siting Methodology for Exploration Program ..................................................................... TM-2009-215574

11. Rudder Speed Brake Power Drive Unit Motor Dry Film Lubrication Bolt Issue Volume I ....................................................................... TM-2009-215689/Volume I

12. Rudder Speed Brake Power Drive Unit Motor Dry Film Lubrication Bolt Issue Volume II ..................................................................... TM-2009-215689/Volume II

13. Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) Inner Tank Flange Evaluation Volume I&II Final Report ...................................................................... TM-2009-215690/Volume I

14. Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) Inner Tank Flange Evaluation Volume I&II Final Report ...................................................................... TM-2009-215690/Volume II

15. Orbiter Rudder/Speedbrake Power Drive Unit Gearbox Backdriving/Scuffing ...................................................................................... TM-2009-215691

16. Review of Analytical Tools for Assessment of Orbiter Tile Damage Effects on Vehicle Thermal and Structural Response Revised ..... TM-2009-215692

17. Assessment of Wave Model Developed to Analyze Orion Water Landing Conditions ........................................................................... TM-2009-215702

18. NDE for ET TPS Closeout Verification .................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215709/Volume I 

19. NDE for ET TPS Closeout Verification .................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215709/Volume II

20. ISS/Shuttle “Flip” Maneuver for TPS Repair ........................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215710

21. Possible Deficiencies in Predicting Transonic Aerodynamics on the X-43A ........................................................................................... TM-2009-215711

22. Orbiter Rudder Speed Brake Actuator-Braycote Grease ........................................................................................................................ TM-2009-215712

23. Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Flight Operations ................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215713

24. Shelf-Life Phenomenon for Graphite/Epoxy Overwrapped Pressure Vessels ........................................................................................ TM-2009-215714/Volume I

25. Shelf-Life Phenomenon for Graphite/Epoxy Overwrapped Pressure Vessels ........................................................................................ TM-2009-215714/Volume II

26. Shuttle Kevlar Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel Safety for Flight Concern ............................................................................. TM-2009-215719/Volume I

27. Shuttle Kevlar Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel Safety for Flight Concern ............................................................................. TM-2009-215719/Volume II

28. Composite Crew Module Pressure Vessel Vol II ..................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215722

29. White Paper on Factors of Safety ........................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215723

30. Orbiter Body Flap Actuator ..................................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215724

31. Rudder Speedbrake Gear Margins ......................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215727

32. Space Station to Shuttle Power Transfer System ................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215728

33. AN-Type Fittings in ISS Node 2 Ammonia System ................................................................................................................................. TM-2009-215729

34. Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Acoustical Resonance Technical Assessment Report .............................. TM-1009-215730

35. Micro Meteoroid Debris (MMOD) Model called “Bumper” ...................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215731

36. Independent Technical Assessment of Cassini/Huygens Entry, Descent and Landing .......................................................................... TM-2009-215732

37. SRB Hold-down Post Stud Hang-up Part 1 ........................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215733/Part 1

38. SRB Hold-down Post Stud Hang-up Part 2 ........................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215733/Part 2

39. Body Flap and Rudder Speed Brake Actuator Bearing .......................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215735

40. Space Shuttle and International Space Station Recurring Anomalies .................................................................................................... TM-2009-215736

41. Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) First Stage Thrust Vector Control (TVC) Propellant Options ....................................................................... TM-2009-215738

42. Orbiter Thrusters (Mounting Flange Bolt Holes) ...................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215739

43. Data Expertise for Independent Verification for ET LH2 Prepress LCC Issues ....................................................................................... TM-2009-215745

44. New Method for Updating Mean Time Between Failure Final Report .................................................................................................... TM-2009-215746

45. Cracked Thick Film Coating on Electronic Packages on Delta 2 Launch Vehicle .................................................................................. TM-2009-215747

46. ET LOX Feedline Bellows Ice Prevention Design .................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215748

47. Statistical Analysis Support for External Tank (ET) Project ..................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215749

48. Taxonomy Working Group Final Report .................................................................................................................................................. TM-2009-215750

49. Guidelines on Lithium-ion Battery Use in Space Applications (excerpt from Volume II (App. B)) .......................................................... TM-2009-215751

50. GSE T-0 Umbilical to SSP Flight Element Assessment .......................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215753 

Continued on next page...
60

NESC Publications 2009 Continued

PUBLICATIONS

51. Recovery Plan for the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) and International Space

 Station (ISS) Airlock Coolant Loop Review for Return-to-Flight ............................................................................................................. TM-2009-215754

52. Reliability Improvements to SX-S/SX-A Series Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) Programmed Antifuses ................................. TM-2009-215755

53. Support STS-114 Gap Filler Anomalies Tiger Team Investigation .......................................................................................................... TM-2009-215756

54. Independent Review Team (IRT) for the Phoenix Mission Terminal Descent Thruster Certification ....................................................... TM-2009-215772

55. Atlas V Tank Failure Investigation and Stress Analysis Volume I ............................................................................................................ TM-2009-215773/Volume I

56. Atlas V Tank Failure Investigation and Stress Analysis Volume II ........................................................................................................... TM-2009-215773/Volume II

57. NESC Support to Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) ........................................................................................................................................ TM-2009-215774

58. NASA Standard for Models and Simulations (M&S): Development Process and Rationale .................................................................. TM-2009-215775

59. STS-115 Fuel Cell Motor Two-Phase Operation Evaluation ................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215776/Volume I

60. STS-115 Fuel Cell Motor Two-Phase Operation Evaluation ................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215776/Volume II

61. SSPTS PTU/APCU OV-105 Installation Risk Assessment Final Report ................................................................................................ TM-2009-215777

62. Space Transportation System (STS)-117 External Tank (ET)-124 Hail Damage Repair Assessment ..................................................... TM-2009-215785

63. Explosion/Blast Dynamics for Constellation Launch Vehicles Assessment ........................................................................................... TM-2009-215786

64. United States Design Practice Approach to Mitigating the June 2007 Computer

 Shutdown Anomaly on the International Space Station (ISS) Russian Segment .................................................................................... TM-2009-215787

65. Assessment of Risks and Mitigation Strategies for the use of Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) Long-Life Batteries (LLB) Volume I ........................ TM-2009-215788/Volume I

66. Assessment of Risks and Mitigation Strategies for the use of Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) Long-Life Batteries (LLB) Volume II Appendices ... TM-2009-215788/Volume II

67. Orion Pad Abort-1 Environments Technical Interchange Meeting April 22-23, 2009 ............................................................................. TM-2009-215789

68. NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) Independent Review for Phoenix Project ................................................................................................ TM-2009-215790

69. James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Integrated Science Module (ISIM) Electrical Cable Protection Volume I .................................. TM-2009-215907/Volume I

70. James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Integrated Science Module (ISIM) Electrical Cable Protection Volume II Appendices ............. TM-2009-215907/Volume II

71. Constellation Program (CxP) Ares I Project Solid Rocket Booster Thrust Oscillation Assessment Volume I ......................................... TM-2009-215908/Volume I

72. Constellation Program (CxP) Ares I Project Solid Rocket Booster Thrust Oscillation Assessment Volume II Appendices .................... TM-2009-215908/Volume II

73. NASA Aerosciences Perspective on Proposed De-Scope of Ares I-X Development Flight Instrumentation ........................................ TM-2009-215909

74. Ares I-X Vibroacoustic Environments ...................................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215910

75. Constellation Program (CxP) Ares I-X Upper Stage Simulator (USS) Project Independent Structural Review ...................................... TM-2009-215911

76. Independent Review of Constellation (Cx) Orion Vehicle Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Risk Analysis ......................... TM-2009-215912

77. Review of Alpha-Ketoglutaric Acid (AKGA) Hydrazine and Monomethylhydrazine (MMH) Neutralizing Compound ............................. TM-2009-215913

78. Review of the Constellation Level II Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) Requirements

 Documents during Participation in the Constellation Level II SR&QA Forum ......................................................................................... TM-2009-215914

79. Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis of the

 Space Shuttle Program (SSP) Space Transportation System (STS)-124 Pad 39A Launch Damage ..................................................... TM-2009-215915

80. Assessment of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complex (LC) Pad 39A Flame Trench Repair .............................................. TM-2009-215916

81. External Tank Thermal Protection System (TPS) Manually Sprayed “fly-as-is” Foam Certification ....................................................... TM-2009-215917

82. Recommendations for Safe Separation Distances from the Kennedy Space Center

 (KSC) Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) Using a Heat-Flux-Based Analytical Approach ....................................................................... TM-2009-215934/Volume I

83. Recommendations for Safe Separation Distances from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

 Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) Using a Heat-Flux-Based Analytical Approach ................................................................................. TM-2009-215934/Volume II

84. Orion and Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) Engineering Workshop Volume I ................................. TM-2009-215935/Volume I

85. Orion and Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) Engineering Workshop Volume II ................................ TM-2009-215935/Volume II

86. Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group (CPVWG) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Cruise-Stage

 Propellant Tank Penetrant Non Destructive Evaluation (NDE) Probability of Detection (POD) Assessment .......................................... TM-2009-215936

87. Orion Ascent Abort (AA)-1 Loads Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215937

88. Reliability of the Wide Range Pump on Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) Instrument Technical Interchange Meeting August 5, 2009 .. TM-2009-215940

89. Propulsion for the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) .......................................................................................................................... TM-2009-215725
61

PUBLICATIONS

Presented Papers

1. Propulsion for the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS); JANNAF Joint Propulsion Meeting; 04/14/2009 - 04/17/2009 Las Vegas, NV

2. Fracture Mechanics Analyses of Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Wing-LeadingEdge Panels; 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference; 04/12/2010 - 04/15/2010 Orlando, FL

3. Design and Development of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) Electrical Power System; AIAA 7th International Energy Conversion Engineering 

Conference; 08/02/2009 - 08/05/2009 Denver, CO

4. Space Shuttle Wing-Leading-Edge Panel Thermo-Mechanical Analysis for 

Entry Conditions; 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural 

Dynamics, and Materials Conference; 04/12/2010 - 04/15/2010 Orlando, FL

5. A Review of the MLAS Parachute Systems; 20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference; 05/04/2009 - 05/07/2009 Seattle, 

WA

6. A Comparison of Fault-Tolerant GN&C System Architectures Using the Object Process Network (OPN) Modeling Language; AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (GNC) 2009; 08/10/2009 - 08/13/2009 Chicago, IL

7. A Physics-Based Temperature Stabilization Criterion for Thermal Testing; 

25th Aerospace Testing Seminar, 10/13/2009 - 10/15/2009 Manhattan 

Beach, CA.

The Space Shuttle Discovery approaches the International Space Station for docking.
Forty Years Later

Forty years ago, men from Earth began for the first time to leave our 

home planet and journey to the moon.

From 1968 to 1972, NASA's Apollo astronauts tested out new spacecraft and journeyed to uncharted 

destinations. 

It all started on May 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending astronauts to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan 

Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy's bold challenge set the nation on a journey 

unlike any before in human history. 

Eight years of hard work by thousands of Americans came to fruition on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 

11 Commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module and took "one small step" in the Sea 

of Tranquility, calling it "a giant leap for mankind."

Six of the missions — Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 — went on to land on the moon, studying soil 

mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and solar wind. Apollos 7 

and 9 tested spacecraft in Earth orbit; Apollo 10 orbited the moon as the dress rehearsal for the first 

landing. An oxygen tank explosion forced Apollo 13 to scrub its landing, but the "can-do" problem 

solving of the crew and mission control turned the mission into a "successful failure." 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

www.nasa.gov

NP-2009-11-225-LaRC