TECHNICAL update

NASA Engineering & Safety Center
The NESC’s unique insignia has its roots in

the early Mercury program.

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

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

for engineering excellence. That was my goal - engineering 

excellence.” - Wally Schirra

For the NESC, the Sigma also represents engineering 

excellence. While Wally Schirra’s spacecraft represented the 

7 Mercury astronauts, the 10 in the NESC insignia represents 

the 10 NASA Centers. The NESC draws upon resources of the 

entire Agency to ensure engineering excellence.

Safety Starts with Engineering Excellence

For general information and requests

for technical assistance visit us at:

nesc.nasa.gov

For anonymous requests write to:

NESC 

NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

MAIL STOP 118

HAMPTON, VA 23681-2199

To perform value-added 

independent testing, 

analysis, and assessments 

of NASA’s high-risk projects 

to ensure safety and mission 

success. The NESC engages 

proactively to help NASA 

avoid future problems.

Members of the NESC Team, 2017.

Sarah Pham conducting vibration 

testing of flight-test avionics.

Illustration: Stacking of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

on the Space Launch System at Kennedy Space Center.
Today, the nation’s eyes are focused on NASA to deliver 

a determined and sustainable course for the future of 

space exploration. In developing our capabilities to reach beyond 

our Earth-Moon system, the Agency will continue to ready its 

planned Exploration Missions, EM-1 and EM-2. The first is an 

uncrewed flight of NASA’s newest spacecraft, the Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle, while EM-2 will carry its first crew aboard. 

Both missions will build on the hard work already well underway 

on Orion, its launch vehicle, the Space Launch System, and the 

Ground Systems Development and Operations enabling launch. 

Similarly, the Commercial Crew Program will mark the return of 

launching crews to the International Space Station from the United 

States as our two providers continue making progress toward this 

key Agency milestone and capability. The NESC’s role in these 

efforts is more important than ever. These programs and others 

across the Agency in science, aeronautics, and technology 

development will continue to rely on the NESC’s strong technical 

expertise, leadership, and engineering solutions they provide 

when challenges arise. Public interest in and expectations of 

NASA have increased, as demonstrated by the reestablishment 

of the National Space Council - further emphasizing the critical 

role NESC’s assessments play in reducing risk and enabling the 

advancement of NASA’s mission and our nation’s goals for the 

future exploration of space.” 

In 2017, as the Agency is in the middle of the most devel

-

opment it has seen since Apollo, the NESC has stepped up 

to provide technical support to our programs in addition to their 

independent role. Whether it’s testing the use of frangible joints, 

EEE parts, or composite overwrapped pressure vessels, the 

NESC is able to assemble the best experts in the nation to ad

-

dress critical issues. Being able to balance technical support with 

its role of independence allows the Agency to leverage NESC’s 

technical experts to the maximum extent possible. Each NESC 

assessment has furthered NASA goals and contributed directly 

to the Agency mission through better-informed decision-making 

and an overall reduction of risk. It’s a strength that NASA will 

continue to rely on as the Agency moves the nation forward in the 

upcoming years in aeronautics, science, technology, and space 

exploration.” 

From

NASA Leadership

FROM NASA LEADERSHIP 1 2017 NESC Technical Update

2-3

4-5

6-78

9-19

20-21

22-23

24-35

36-43

44-51

52-53

54-55

56-58

NESC Overview

Ensuring Engineering Excellence Today and into the Future

Profile: Michael Blythe, NESC Deputy Director for Safety

Safety First: How the NESC Maintains a Deeply Rooted Culture of Safety

Profile: Stephen Minute, NESC Chief Engineer at KSC

NCEs: The NESC’s Crucial Link to NASA Centers

Workforce Development

Mentoring the Next Generation of Engineers

NESC at the Centers

Drawing upon Resources of the Entire Agency to Ensure Mission Success

NESC Knowledge Products

Capturing and Preserving Critical Knowledge for the Future

NESC Academy

Informative Lessons Relevant to Current NASA Issues and Challenges

Assessment and Support Activities

Technical Assessments and Technical Support Activities Conducted by the NESC in 2017

Discipline Focus

Discipline Perspectives Related to Assessments

Innovative Techniques

Solutions Developed from NESC Assessments

NESC Honor Awards

Recognizing Those Who Demonstrate a Commitment to a Strong Safety Culture

NESC Leadership and Alumni

Publications

Contents

8-foot-diameter honeycomb-core 

sandwich composite cylinder 

positioned in MSFC autoclave. 

Completed cylinder will be tested 

to failure in the Shell Buckling 

Knockdown Factor Project. 

see pages 42-43

Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr.

NASA Acting Administrator

Ralph R. Roe, Jr.

NASA Chief Engineer
PERFORMING NESC ASSESSMENTS

Approval Peer Review and Approval

ACCEPTED REQUESTS SINCE 2003:

767 total, 53 for FY17

Data as of September 30, 2017

Sources of Accepted Requests

2 NESC OVERVIEW

 2017 NESC Technical Update

PE

NESC

Principal

Engineers

NCE

NESC

Chief

Engineers

NASA

71%

Industry

23%

Academia

3%

Other Gov.

3%

Office

of the

Director

NASA

Technical

Fellows

NIO

NESC

Integration

Office

MTSO

Management

and Technical

Support Office

NRB

NESC Review Board

NASA Office of the Chief Engineer

NASA Engineering & Safety Center Core Team

Technical Discipline Teams (TDT)

More Than 800 TDT Members

Aerosciences

Avionics

Cryogenics

Electrical Power

Environmental

Control/Life Support

Flight Mechanics

Guidance, Navigation, 

and Control

Propulsion

Robotic Spaceflight

Sensors/

Instrumentation

Software

Space Environments

Structures

Systems Engineering

Human Factors

Loads and Dynamics

Materials

Mechanical Systems

Nondestructive

Evaluation

Nuclear Power

and Propulsion

Passive Thermal

Center Management

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance

Office of Chief Engineer

Safety and Mission Assurance at Centers

Other NASA Offices

Program Management

NESC

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

17%

19%

External to Agency 3%

Anonymous 1%

Engineering and Scientific 

Organizations 47%

Behind every remarkable achievement, every iconic spacecraft, every new technology, every explored world, are people. 

This NESC Technical Update presents some accomplishments 

of those people, from engineers who have been with NASA 

since Apollo to new faces fresh out of college. They have all 

worked with the NESC this past year to find solutions to the 

Agency’s toughest technical problems.

The NESC is structured to quickly build assessment teams 

to address technical issues that can arise anywhere within or external to NASA. These teams comprise engineers 

and scientists drawn from 21 different technical disciplines, 

referred to as Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). Each TDT 

is typically led by a NASA Technical Fellow, who is the 

Agency lead for that discipline. While the Technical Fellows 

work directly for the NESC, they are still an Agency-wide 

resource. The members of their TDTs represent the highest 

level of discipline expertise available – drawn from all 10 

NASA Centers, other government agencies, academia, and 

industry. In addition to supporting the NESC, the NASA 

Technical Fellows are also a fundamental part of the Office of 

the Chief Engineer-supported capability leadership initiative 

that is fundamentally changing the way the Agency manages 

engineering resources, and promises to improve efficiency, 

reduce long-term operating costs, and improve the health of 

NASA’s technical disciplines.

The Technical Fellows are part of the NESC core team, which 

also includes the Principal Engineers, NESC Integration Office, 

NESC Chief Engineers, and the Management and Technical 

Support Office. All of the elements of the core team come 

together in the NESC Review Board (NRB), which provides 

diversity to its review and approval process, because people 

with different experience bases and technical backgrounds 

approach each issue from a different vantage point. The 

results are a broader understanding of each technical problem 

and its solutions.

While the areas of emphasis for the NESC have evolved over 

the 14 years of its existence, its commitment to “safety starts 

with engineering excellence” has not waivered. The NESC 

was formed in the wake of the Columbia accident and, for the 

first several years, spent a large fraction of its resources on 

the operational crewed programs of the Space Shuttle and 

the International Space Station (ISS), while also supporting 

many of the science and aeronautics activities. Today, while 

the ISS, science, and aeronautics are still important customers for the NESC, the Space Shuttle has been retired, 

and a heightened focus on new crewed spacecraft systems 

– the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch 

System, Ground Systems Development and Operations, and 

Commercial Crew Program – is one of the NESC’s priorities. 

With such large programs and three completely different 

vehicles in development, there are many challenges facing 

NASA and the commercial crew providers. The NESC is 

helping to identify and address “gaps” in the designs and 

what is required or what is in the best interest of safety and 

mission success.

The NESC is also dedicated to ensuring continuity of “safety 

starts with engineering excellence.” As people retire or otherwise move on, a new generation of engineers is needed to 

step up and fill the voids that are left. This is a challenge, 

but it is also an opportunity to acquire fresh ideas and perspectives. The NESC places new engineers on many of 

their assessment teams to learn from the more experienced 

team members. In fact, all of the team members learn from 

each other – new and experienced. In this way, knowledge is 

continually transferred, and this helps to ease and shift the 

expertise load when someone leaves.

It is this diversity in experience and technical backgrounds 

that the NESC promotes, values, and relies on to solve 

the Agency’s toughest technical issues, and it is this same 

diversity that strengthens the NESC and NASA as an agency.

Ensuring Engineering Excellence

Today and into the Future

Request

Submitted

(by anyone)

Request

Processed,

Evaluated, and

Accepted

Assessment

Team Formed

and

Plan Developed

and Approved

Proceed with

 Assessment

(Testing, Data Collection, 

Modeling, and Analysis)

NESC Review Board NESC Review Board

Deliver Final

Report to

Stakeholders

Submitted Requests

Evaluated Based on

NESC Task Priorities

and OCE Risks

NESC Assessment

Selection

Priorities 1-5

NESC Core and 

Extended Team 

Members

Assessment Team

Document

Findings,

Observations,

and

Recommendations

Science

17%

Human

Exploration

and

Operations

29%

Broad Agency/

External

Space 13% Technology

2%

Aeronautics

Research

2%

(former)

Space

Operations

21%

(former)

Exploration

Systems

16%

Accepted Requests

by Mission Directorate

NESC OVERVIEW 3 2017 NESC Technical Update
4 MICHAEL BLYTHE, NESC Deputy Director for Safety

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Safety First: How the NESC Maintains

a Deeply Rooted Culture of Safety

In 2009, Mr. Michael Blythe joined the NESC Director’s Office 

as the Deputy Director for Safety (DDS). His role is an important one – maintaining a robust safety culture. It’s a job that 

calls on his decades-long career as a NASA engineer and his 

ability to communicate with people across all disciplines and 

NASA Centers. 

Fostering a safety culture starts with communication, and 

he casts a wide net to ensure that culture stays entrenched 

within the NESC and across the Agency. As the NESC’s interface to the NASA safety community, job one is “involving the 

community in our NESC activities where it makes sense to do 

so.” That includes offering the NESC’s services to help solve 

technical issues and ensuring the safety community is well 

represented on assessment teams. 

The job as DDS is meeting intensive, but his participation is 

crucial in order to stay in touch with the safety community at 

large. “I do attend a lot of meetings,” he said. “I’m that guy 

in the background helping people, making sure things don’t 

get overlooked.” He meets regularly with NASA’s Office of 

Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) and the NASA Safety 

Center. He also serves as the NESC representative for Safety 

and Mission Success Reviews (SMSR), the Safety Culture 

Working Group, Mishap Investigation Board Working Group, 

the System Safety Steering Group, and Standing Review 

Boards (SRB). 

Mr. Blythe has chaired several SRBs, which provide independent reviews of projects or programs at specific life-cycle 

milestones. They are long term commitments, lasting for the 

duration of the project – from initial design to post launch. 

For NASA’s Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment 

(SAGE III) Project, he assembled the SRB team and organized 

each milestone review. “A few weeks before each review, we 

received the project’s updates and spent time going through 

their material to make sure we understood everything, noting 

areas where we might have concerns or need clarification. At 

the review we focused on areas where we could help the project and show them where they were on the mark and where 

there may be gaps they need to address.” 

Offering an Independent Perspective

It’s the approach he takes with every SRB he chairs – to offer 

expertise and provide actions the project can take to help them 

be successful. “You can’t always see the forest for the trees 

when knee-deep in a project. That’s when it’s good to have an 

outside, independent team help you find things you may have 

overlooked. We point out issues that if not addressed early 

could become bigger problems.” 

The SAGE III SRB reviews occurred periodically over about 

4 years. The mission launched to its post on the International 

Space Station in early 2017 and is now producing science data. 

He is now chairing the SRB for NASA’s GEDI Project, Global 

Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation Lidar, which will provide high 

resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography. 

Providing Constructive Advice

While his focus is safety management, he still supports NESC 

assessments. “I still wear an engineering hat and participate in 

assessments where I think I can have an impact.” He recently 

served as the deputy lead for an assessment to determine 

the risks associated with loading cryogenic propellants after a 

crew is onboard a flight vehicle, a departure from the normal 

approach of loading propellants prior to crew ingress. “I 

served as the backup to the assessment lead, and used my 

engineering background to serve as the avionics lead.” 

NESC assessments offer him the opportunity to share what 

he’s learned. “I always try to provide constructive advice, advice that people can do something with. I feel that if you can’t 

offer constructive options, then you haven’t really helped anybody. Recently, we reviewed the Exploration Systems Development integrated hazard development process. It was a tough 

assessment, but we provided them constructive feedback on 

their integrated hazards process for the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle, Space Launch System, and Ground Systems 

Development and Operations Programs. I’ve always gone in 

with a ‘how can I help you’ approach and that has worked. 

We’ve received positive feedback in helping projects or programs find holes they didn’t know they had.” 

After many years at NASA, Mr. Blythe has watched the safety 

culture at the Agency evolve over the years, witnessing this 

first hand at the SMSRs, which are held before every NASA 

launch in preparation for flight readiness reviews. 

“I attend every SMSR for every Agency mission. At each 

SMSR, the NASA Chief Engineer and the OSMA Chief ask 

if anyone has any concerns or any dissenting opinions. They 

offer everyone a chance to speak up. They listen because 

they want all the information they can get to make informed 

decisions. I’ve seen those dissenting opinions go up the line 

from the engineer to senior management and all the way to 

NASA Headquarters. The process worked. The dissents were 

heard. That’s a change that’s made an impact.” 

 

Working on NESC assessments lets him contribute to the 

Agency’s success in many ways and that’s an aspect of the 

job he really enjoys. “It’s the best place in the Agency to work. 

There are a lot of sharp people here and it’s a joy to work 

with them. We’ve made a lot of important contributions to the 

Agency. The NESC, I think, is more respected now than it was 

even 5 years ago. People finally know who we are. The Agency 

recognizes the value of the NESC and I’m honored and blessed 

to be a small part of a well-managed, successful organization.” 

MICHAEL BLYTHE, NESC Deputy Director for Safety 5 2017 NESC Technical Update

 WE’VE MADE A LOT OF IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS... 

THE AGENCY RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF THE NESC AND

I’M HONORED AND BLESSED TO BE A SMALL PART OF A

WELL-MANAGED, SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION.”

Michael Blythe

NESC Deputy

Director for Safety
processing flight hardware, a job he had done before at 

KSC. The assessment gave him the opportunity to work with 

personnel from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility. 

“I came in thinking I knew everything about processing flight 

hardware, but then I saw how Wallops did it,” said Mr. Minute. 

“They didn’t have the same constraints I had from working on 

human spaceflight hardware. They had different capabilities 

and ways of doing business, and they could come at the issue 

from a different perspective that highlighted solutions I hadn’t 

even thought about. The assessment made me realize there 

were a lot of smart people across NASA and they all have 

good ideas worth listening to. Having those conversations 

back and forth broadened my perspective.”

Building a Bridge to the NESC

At every KSC meeting and interaction, Mr. Minute now looks at 

problems and concerns through the NESC independent lens. 

“Because of the NESC’s interaction with a lot of other Centers 

and programs through its assessments, I can bring a different 

perspective from that of my own Center. Sometimes being at 

one Center or in one organization can limit experiences,” he 

said. “NCEs can sometimes bring a different perspective to 

the thought process.” 

For the past few years, he has been bringing that different 

perspective to NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). 

Residing at KSC, CCP is working with its commercial partners 

like SpaceX and Boeing to develop the spacecraft that will 

eventually launch NASA’s astronauts back into space from 

U.S. soil. Maintaining insight into these programs is one of the 

NASA Chief Engineer’s top Agency risks, one of the NESC’s 

prime areas of focus for its assessments, and what takes up 

the majority of Mr. Minute’s time as an NCE. “I work with the 

CCP, its partners, and engineering to try and bring NESC 

expertise to help them in any way we can. That’s my number 

one priority.”

“I communicate with people at all levels and disciplines 

regarding project concerns, trends, and patterns that we’re 

seeing. I sit in on a large number of technical meetings, and 

I spend a lot of time talking with engineers in the hallways, 

calling them, and asking them questions,” he said. “I also 

participate in technical reviews and boards at KSC – to act 

as another set of eyes on engineering panels.” When he sees 

an opportunity for the NESC to help out with work going on at 

KSC or receives requests from KSC projects and programs for 

NESC assistance, he brings those concerns and issues to the 

NESC Review Board (NRB). The NRB provides a board-level 

technical review of all NESC activities and assessments and 

the weekly NRBs give Mr. Minute the opportunity to share, as 

well as gain, insight from other NCEs and NASA Technical 

Fellows. He also meets weekly with his fellow NCEs from 

NASA’s other nine Centers. “We’ll talk about what’s going on 

and what we are learning at our own Centers. It’s a back and 

forth communication,” which he continues by sharing with 

KSC any lessons learned that are pertinent.

Mr. Minute also keeps tabs on KSC expertise to help staff the 

NESC’s assessment teams, the majority of which come from 

NASA’s engineering organizations. “NCEs know what their 

Center’s expertise or lab capabilities are and pull those people 

and facilities in if needed. We make sure those resources are 

available.” 

“It’s not easy being a conduit,” he said. “But this is the best 

job I’ve had. I just learn so much. Because the NESC is factoriented and tries to provide unbiased technical input, it’s 

really helped me to be unbiased and look at all sides of the 

story. Sometimes I used to let my biases do my thinking for me, 

but now I try to understand the other side, all of the different 

perspectives. You just have to try to understand them and use 

them to get to a common solution. There are so many smart 

people at the Agency who have just as good or better ideas, 

and they can help if we let them.” 

Sometimes to gain a new perspective on how to solve a 

problem, Mr. Stephen Minute has found he has to look through 

a wider lens.

Right after graduation from Penn State in 1983, Mr. Minute 

joined NASA to work as a fluid systems engineer with the 

shuttle main propulsion system at Kennedy Space Center 

(KSC). Over the next 20 years, he became a self-described 

KSC man, with a deep-rooted sense of place and perspective 

that evolved over 20 years of working on the Space Shuttle 

Program and playing a part in countless NASA launches. 

But in 2006, when selected to serve as the NESC Chief 

Engineer (NCE) at KSC, he quickly realized that to be a 

valuable NCE, he was going to have to expand his KSC 

perspective to a NASA-wide point of view. When the NESC 

organization began in 2003, its founding principles included 

providing independent test and analysis to offer a second, 

broader-focused perspective to some of NASA’s most 

challenging issues. NCEs play a big role in ensuring those 

perspectives and ideas maintain a steady flow between the 

NASA Centers and the NESC. 

Widening the Lens

For Mr. Minute, changing his thinking and his sometimes 

Center-biased approach to solving problems was a challenge 

for him, but as he participated in more and more NESC 

assessments, he watched that bias start to disappear. He 

remembers his first major NESC assessment that helped him 

start to broaden his approach, the Max Launch Abort System 

(MLAS). The NESC was tasked with designing, building, and 

testing an alternate launch abort system for the former Crew 

Exploration Vehicle. The assessment team had people from all 

across NASA, as well as industry and mentors from the Apollo, 

International Space Station, and Space Shuttle Programs. 

“That was the first real significant assessment I was on, and 

I really got to see a very diverse cross section of the Agency 

all coming together to work on this one project.” His job was 

NCEs: The NESC’s Crucial

Link to NASA Centers

Serve as liaison between resident Center and NESC

Foster proactive involvement with programs and 

projects at resident Center

Provide technical expertise and technical resources 

external to the program/project to assist with 

resolving issues

Provide program/project insight to NESC through 

participation at major boards and panels

Review assessment requests, clarify issues, perform 

risk assessments, recommend NESC courses of 

action, develop associated cost estimates, and 

present this information to NRB

Manage NESC resources at resident Center

Assist Principal Engineers and NASA Technical 

Fellows with staffing NESC technical activities with 

resident Center resources

Contribute to Technical Discipline Teams and 

NESC technical activities – both assessments and 

support activities – based on their areas of expertise

THE ROLE OF AN NCE

6 STEPHEN MINUTE, NESC Chief Engineer at KSC

 2017 NESC Technical Update

STEPHEN MINUTE, NESC Chief Engineer at KSC 7 2017 NESC Technical Update

Stephen Minute

NESC Chief Engineer at

Kennedy Space Center

I WORK WITH THE CCP, ITS 

PARTNERS, AND ENGINEERING 

TO TRY AND BRING NESC 

EXPERTISE TO HELP THEM IN 

ANY WAY WE CAN. THAT’S MY 

NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.”

Photo: Mr. Minute led development of ground processing

plans and procedures for the MLAS flight hardware – pictured here 

inspecting a parachute static line used on the flight test. 
After Dr. William Walker started his graduate degree 

in 2012, he applied for a fellowship program at Johnson 

Space Center (JSC). He was looking for opportunities to 

gain experience in understanding lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery 

thermal runaway (TR), the topic on which he would eventually 

write his dissertation. 

“They plugged me into the work that the NESC was doing 

on TR. Everything fit in perfectly,” said Dr. Walker. He is now 

an engineer at JSC assisting Mr. Steven 

Rickman, NASA Technical Fellow for Passive Thermal, on an NESC assessment to 

develop calorimetry technology to better 

understand how a battery’s thermal energy 

is dispersed during TR (see center box).

Mentoring is a fundamental part of 

Mr. Rickman’s philosophy. “I’m probably 

the biggest advocate of mentoring you will 

find. I’ve always felt it was important,” said 

Mr. Rickman. “Early career engineers and 

engineering students need to do their time 

in the trenches. They need to get a number 

of years of hands-on applied engineering 

work and get exposure to a wide variety of 

problems. From that they gain wisdom they 

can apply to problems in the future.”

The assessment has been a great 

learning experience for Dr. Walker. “I’m not 

only doing data interpretation, but I’ve also 

been involved in the design of hardware, providing thermal 

expertise as I can, and I’ve been a part of the tests as they 

happen.”

Dr. Eric Darcy, the assessment’s technical lead, is a registered mentor who has worked with many students. “I’m very 

hands-on in terms of tagging up routinely and making sure 

they don’t have roadblocks keeping them from doing their 

work. I find it’s important for them to not only design, but also 

build and test – to experience the whole process while they 

are here,” he said. 

An internship led Ms. Natalie Anderson to JSC and the 

calorimetry assessment. “I set up the calorimeter for testing, 

deciding what would be different from test to test, gathering 

data, and reducing it down for the person doing the thermal 

analysis,” she said. “I really enjoyed the hands-on aspect. It’s 

fun when you can put the pieces together and start testing to 

see if it really works.” 

Now a new graduate student, Ms. Anderson said Dr. Darcy 

was a great mentor. “He answered questions, 

and if I wasn’t sure about something, he was 

accessible. He didn’t treat me like an intern 

who didn’t know anything. He would ask me 

what I thought and let me prove myself.”

 Mr. Jacob Darst is a former co-op student 

now working at NASA. “I’ve been designing 

and refining components for the calorimeter 

system,” he said. “I can say I have my thumb 

print on every piece of this device. I’ve 

been part of the design, manufacturing, and 

testing. I’ve spent countless hours wiring it 

up, firing it, and tending to it. With this calorimeter, we can create better mitigation 

systems and better battery pack designs. I 

may be just daring to dream, but this could 

be a device that’s eventually used at NASA 

and in industry.”

 Mr. Rickman likes that enthusiasm. “Here 

they get to apply what they’ve learned in 

school to real-world problems. Whether you are a co-op, an 

intern, or an early career engineer, you’ll see that the information 

you might need to solve a problem isn’t in a textbook. You have 

to be creative and invent things on the fly,” Mr. Rickman said. 

“Many engineers would attest that not everything we 

know is written down, despite our best efforts to do so,” he 

added. “A lot of what we know is in our heads. A good way 

to transfer knowledge is for young engineers and seasoned 

engineers to work side by side to make sure that flow of information takes place.” 

Mentoring the Next Generation of Engineers

8 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

 2017 NESC Technical Update

 A GOOD WAY TO TRANSFER 

KNOWLEDGE IS FOR YOUNG 

ENGINEERS AND SEASONED 

ENGINEERS TO WORK SIDE BY SIDE 

TO MAKE SURE THAT FLOW OF 

INFORMATION TAKES PLACE.”

Assessment Team (left to right):

Dr. Eric Darcy; Jacob Darst; Dr. William Walker;

Steven Rickman; Natalie Anderson (not shown)

Li-Ion batteries have garnered 

attention because of thermal 

runaway (TR) issues. TR can 

occur due to internal cell failures, 

resulting in elevated temperatures 

and the release of hot gases and 

flames. The NESC has performed 

assessments to develop TR severity 

reduction measures and improve 

the design of its Li-Ion batteries 

used in spaceflight. Data obtained 

from the calorimeter will aid 

in the development of thermal 

mathematical models to improve 

TR mitigation and inform future 

battery designs.

NESC at the

Centers

Drawing upon Resources of

the Entire Agency to Ensure

Mission Success

NESC AT THE CENTERS 9 2017 NESC Technical Update

For more on Li-Ion batteries, see pages 39 and 51.
AMES RESEARCH CENTER

NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) continues its support of NESC activities by leveraging its unique and diverse 

capabilities including: aeronautics research; computational 

fluid dynamics; wind tunnel testing; entry, descent, and 

landing (EDL) modeling; arc jet testing of advanced thermal 

protection materials; and human factors research. Many 

of these areas of expertise have been engaged to assist 

with NESC technical assessments and in support of the 

Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) throughout 2017. ARC 

has representatives on 17 NESC TDTs. ARC continues to 

support independent EDL modeling for the Commercial Crew 

Program (CCP) using expertise in aerothermal analysis and 

high speed computation to provide validation of entry system 

environments and designs for NASA’s commercial partners. 

Experts in data mining and information technology have 

assisted with NESC efforts to understand physiological events 

associated with F/A-18 aircraft for the Navy. ARC engineers 

continue to support major discipline reviews for CCP, Orion 

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, and the Space Launch System 

in the areas of structures and materials. Both the Technical 

Fellow for Human Factors and acting Technical Fellow for 

Structures are currently located at ARC.

Modeling Entry, Descent, and Landing

of Commercial Crew Vehicles

As NASA’s commercial crew providers develop and 

finalize their designs for the Boeing Starliner and SpaceX 

Crew Dragon, three senior research scientists have developed 

analytical models of these vehicles and are running multiple 

simulations to provide independent verification and validation 

of the commercial partner designs. Their work supports the 

NESC’s assessment to provide independent modeling and 

EDL simulation for CCP.

“Our group’s area of expertise is aerothermodynamics 

and material response modeling,” said Dr. Steven Sepka, who 

models the thermal protection systems that shield vehicles 

from the extreme heat of reentry and writes code to calculate 

margins. “The EDL group with the NESC is a very senior group 

that helps provide oversight as the CCP helps the commercial 

providers develop their spacecraft. We help where we can, 

performing checks and making sure everything looks good.” 

“If we’re given a potential trajectory for a spacecraft’s 

EDL, aerothermodynamics will determine the heating environment the craft will encounter,” he said. “Once we understand that environment, we can also determine and model 

how the spacecraft’s material will respond.” The team has 

performed hundreds of these independent checks in support 

of CCP verification reviews. 

“For each reentry there’s a need for aerothermal analysis,” 

said Dr. Yehia Rizk. “Each application is somewhat different 

from the other. Using tools like computational fluid dynamics, 

we try to predict the environment for all possible trajectories 

and identify any that might exceed the spacecraft’s material 

limits, which could cause a failure. Our independent analysis 

assists in determining the accuracy of the aerothermal 

environment developed by our commercial providers,” he 

said. “It’s challenging, using computational tools to predict 

what will happen in real life.” 

Senior Scientist Mr. Loc Huynh gathers all of that information into an aerothermal database. “The database covers 

the entire flight envelope for every trajectory. At every step we 

want to know the aerothermal characteristics of the vehicle, 

how much heat is generated, what kind of shielding is used, 

and the kinds of pressure the vehicle encounters,” he said. 

“The providers have their own databases, but our database 

allows us to maintain an independent check.”

This assessment marks the first time Dr. Sepka has 

worked with the NESC. “As we uncover different issues or 

identify a need, we can make a call,” he said of the ability 

to tap into the NESC’s resources of technical expertise. “I’m 

happy to be involved with such a great group of people. They 

are the highest caliber in terms of technical knowledge.” 

“Unlike other projects we work on, the NESC goes across 

not only Ames, but Langley and Johnson,” said Dr. Rizk. “We 

interact with people from different groups who contribute to 

the effort and we’re exposed to different opinions. This is a 

multi-Center team,” he said. Every time you can interact with 

more people, the more beneficial it is.”

Mr. Huynh finds the work he is doing for the NESC challenging as well as enjoyable. “We have a lot of freedom to do 

what we need to do,” he said. “And when I think about working 

on something that flies in space, it just makes me feel good.”

NESC Chief Engineer

25 ARC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Kenneth R. Hamm, Jr.

ARC Mountain View, CA

10 NESC AT THE CENTERS: Ames Research Center

 2017 NESC Technical Update

ARMSTRONG FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER

The Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) provided 

engineering technical expertise and support to the NESC for 

numerous activities including the SpaceX Falcon 9 Composite 

Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) Instrumentation Team, 

the composite Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) 

Project, the Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group, and 

the Frangible Joint Empirical Test Program. In particular, the 

AFRC Fiber Optic Sensing System (FOSS) Team instrumented, 

supported testing, and analyzed fiber optic temperature and 

strain measurements of multiple composite test articles. The 

team developed new and innovative attachment techniques to 

measure the physical response of COPVs in liquid nitrogen. 

These activities served as a step toward the eventual goal of 

testing COPVs in densified liquid oxygen for launch vehicle 

applications. Engineers, instrumentation specialists, and technicians traveled to various locations throughout the year to 

support sensor characterization, installation, and large-scale 

testing in support of these programs.

NESC Benefits from FOSS Technology

 

Tests and analyses performed during three NESC 

assessments in 2017 required the use of AFRC’s FOSS 

Laboratory, a specialized facility that uses fiber optics (FO) to 

measure strain, temperature, shape deformation, loads, and 

other key parameters to understand a structure’s performance. 

Fiber optics were used to get a distributed strain measurement 

for the NESC’s SBKF assessment where, during testing, an 

8-foot tall/8-foot diameter cylinder was crushed much like 

a soda can by a 900,000-pound load. To understand what 

happened as the structure was compressed to failure, the 

cylinder was extensively instrumented with 16 fibers, each the 

width of a human hair and 40 feet long, which allowed data 

retrieval from measurements on both the inner and outer mold 

lines.

“The FO system allows us to record a strain measurement 

along every half inch of each 40-foot long fiber. For this 

application, we sampled all strain sensors 10 times per 

second. That’s approximately a thousand measurements per 

fiber across 16 fibers simultaneously – and almost 160,000 

measurements per second,” said Mr. Francisco Peña of the 

FOSS Structures Laboratory. In this case, FO painted a clear 

picture, for example, of stress concentrations that conventional 

strain gage and thermocouple technology may have missed. 

“We work hand-in-hand with NASA organizations, and as 

we transition to new FO techniques, we keep them abreast 

of how they can apply this technology,” said Mr. Allen Parker, 

who works in the FOSS Systems Laboratory developing the 

systems used to pull information from the FO sensors.

Fiber optic sensors were also used on COPVs in support 

of NESC assessments. “We instrumented a 100-gallon COPV 

with fiber optics much like the SBKF cylinder, but on a smaller 

scale,” said Mr. Parker. As the COPV was pressurized, 

the FOSS Team analyzed strain and temperature data to 

understand the structure’s response. 

“We are tasked with using FO sensors to look at a multitude of real-world problems within the Agency and beyond,” 

added Mr. Peña. “We’re glad FOSS technology could help the 

NESC better understand structural responses and come up 

with solutions.” 

Evolution of Technology

Mr. Anthony Piazza has worked in instrumentation at 

NASA for more than 25 years and has worked with the FOSS 

Laboratory overseeing the attachment of fiber optics for the 

NESC SBKF and COPV assessments. His main area of focus 

is making accurate structural strain and temperature measurements over a very broad temperature range, from cryogenic 

temperatures to 1800° F. 

“I develop attachment techniques to ensure electrical strain 

gages and fiber optic sensors provide accurate measurements 

when bonded to structures that are exposed to extreme temperature environments. This involves characterizing these sensors for measurement errors caused by high temperatures 

seen during reentry or the extremely low temps we get with 

cryogens,” said Mr. Piazza. 

Over his 25 years, he has watched technology change 

from a completely electrical-based instrumentation. “We 

have transitioned to optical methods in most applications for 

making strain and temperature measurements. We still use 

strain gages and thermocouples, but more and more we are 

seeing the coverage of fiber dwarf that of regular strain gages. 

We get so many more measurements along a single fiber,” he 

said. “We’re not replacing electrical methods, but at AFRC we 

are using FOSS in most everything we’re doing.” 

NESC Chief Engineer

24 AFRC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Dr. W. Lance Richards

AFRC

Edwards, CA

NESC AT THE CENTERS: Armstrong Flight Research Center 11 2017 NESC Technical Update
GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

The Glenn Research Center (GRC) provided a broad 

spectrum of technical expertise in support of 15 NESC assessments and all of the NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT). 

These activities supported all mission directorates as well as 

several cross-cutting discipline activities. Significant GRC 

contributions this year were in support of the development 

of a strategy for broader integration of model-based systems 

engineering (MBSE) – a recent development in system-level 

modeling – throughout the Agency as well as support for 

compatibility of composite overwrapped pressure vessels with 

liquid oxygen. Deputies for the Propulsion, Electrical Power, 

Systems Engineering, and Nuclear Power and Propulsion 

TDTs are resident at GRC. 

Developing a Roadmap for MBSE

At NASA for 28 years, Dr. Karen Weiland performs 

system engineering work at GRC for spaceflight projects. 

As the NESC Systems Engineering TDT Deputy for Strategy 

Integration, she has been developing a 5-year plan for MBSE 

development and infusion at NASA, along with an MBSE 

vision and roadmap for NASA and its major stakeholders. 

“One component of the plan is the formation of a strategy 

group that will take a longer-term look at MBSE and NASA’s 

use of it, identify desired systems engineering capabilities 

to advance, and recommend investments,” she said. It also 

includes development of internal and external systems 

engineering-related funding sources, schedule, requirements, 

strategies, and activities. 

Dr. Weiland supported the NASA Technical Fellow 

for Systems Engineering in 2016 as a NASA Headquarters 

Office of the Chief Engineer detailee, and was the lead for the 

NESC-sponsored MBSE Pathfinder. In 2017, she was the colead of the MBSE Pathfinder along with her strategic planning 

work. Dr. Weiland provides expertise on the scope of work, 

cadence, team progress, and integration of results into the 

NASA systems engineering workforce. 

“My experience working with the NESC gives me 

an Agency-level perspective along with awareness and 

knowledge about how systems engineers across the Agency 

are organized and how they approach their work,” she said. 

“I am able to share that perspective and knowledge directly 

with my peers and management. I also have an extensive 

network of colleagues at all the NASA Centers, industry, and 

academia that I use as resources, and I make connections 

among people to foster the growth of the user community at 

GRC and across the Agency.”

Supporting an Agency-Wide Propulsion Community 

As one of two deputies for the NASA Technical Fellow for

Propulsion, Mr. Kevin Dickens helps to coordinate NESC 

propulsion-related activities at the Agency and GRC level. 

Mr. Dickens, the former European Service Module Propulsion 

sub-system manager, brings a wealth of experience in liquid 

propulsion. Also, he ensures the GRC aero propulsion, electric 

propulsion, and liquid propulsion capabilities are understood 

and can be leveraged by the broader NASA community as 

part of the propulsion capability leadership activities.

Mr. Dickens also supports propulsion-related assessments for the NESC including a recent effort to evaluate liquid 

apogee engine failures that have increased risk concerns for 

similar hardware used in multiple NASA missions. He was part 

of the NESC team that provided recommendations for engine 

screening and system design. “Several different liquid apogee 

engine issues arose within NASA and Air Force programs. 

The failures that occurred had many commonalities,” said 

Mr. Dickens. “The NESC worked with each of the programs 

encountering these issues to understand the common threads 

between them and see if there were any cross-cutting issues.”

He also participated in the 2017 Juno Check Valve 

Anomaly Recovery Assessment. The Juno spacecraft, which 

orbits Jupiter, had encountered problems with its propulsion 

system, and the NESC was asked to weigh in on the program’s 

approach to conducting its remaining burns in order to continue with the science mission. “We evaluated whether there 

were any risks that should be considered,” said Mr. Dickens, 

who enjoyed the opportunity to work on spacecraft for planetary exploration. “It was extremely far away and was a highstakes problem,” he said. “It’s been interesting to get a wider 

view of the problems different programs are dealing with and 

finding the common threads that could benefit the propulsion 

community at large.”

NESC AT THE CENTERS: Goddard Space Flight Center 13 2017 NESC Technical Update

12 NESC AT THE CENTERS: Glenn Research Center

 2017 NESC Technical Update

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) continued to 

extensively support NESC activities in 2017. GSFC provided 

expertise to 16 Technical Discipline Teams with 57 engineers, 

technicians, and scientists. GSFC is the resident Center 

for the NASA Technical Fellows for Systems Engineering, 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control, Mechanical Systems, and 

Avionics. Significant contributions this year were in support 

of the Navy F/A-18 Fleet Physiological Events Assessment, 

automotive and non-automotive electrical, electronic, and 

electromechanical (EEE) parts testing, the Deep Space Climate Observatory CompHub Reset Assessment, analysis of 

a commercial crew provider’s avionics system, and the Effects 

of Humidity on Dry Film Lubricant Storage and Performance 

Assessment.

Testing EEE Parts

In its assessment to perform EEE parts testing for the 

Commercial Crew Program (CCP), the NESC enlisted the help 

of the EEE Parts, Packaging, and Assembly Technologies 

Branch at GSFC. The work presents a new challenge from 

the typical selection, testing, and analysis of parts for NASA 

projects and programs, said Mr. Christopher Green, Associate 

Branch Head. 

“We’re performing hard evaluations of the commercialand automotive-grade parts selected by CCP and its partners, 

including destructive physical analysis and environmental 

and electrical testing,” he said. “Most of our in-house projects 

involve military standard parts so it has been interesting to 

see parts with which we haven’t had experience. We are 

getting to use a different skill set in deprocessing these parts.” 

Working with CCP is relatively new for the branch, he 

said. “It’s very interesting for us because there are a lot of 

new parts we haven’t looked at before, as well as new manufacturers.” Mr. Green’s branch has been disassembling these 

parts to examine their internal elements, wire bonds, material 

interfaces, and the workmanship of the manufacturer. “We want 

to see how well they were manufactured, if the placement of 

wire bonds is correct, or if there are any defects that could 

lead to latent failure or reduced reliability,” he said. “We identify any areas of concern where engineers may want to do 

further testing.” 

Mr. Green said he expects this trend of using commercial 

and automotive grade parts to continue and the NESC work 

“is a great way to hone our skills in processing these parts and 

build our knowledge base in preparation for new missions.” 

Analyzing Terabytes of Flight Data

From her post at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility,

Ms. Marta Shelton is pouring through data generated by 

the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 fleet as part of an assessment the 

NESC is conducting for Naval Air Systems Command. As 

part of GSFC’s electrical engineering branch where her work 

includes optimizing antenna bandwidth for sounding rockets and calculating data rates for cube satellite missions,

Ms. Shelton has enjoyed the challenge of the NESC work. 

“It is incredibly fast paced,” she said of the assessment. 

“The aircraft systems are extremely complex. There is a lot of 

information to assimilate in order to be successful,” she said. 

“But that has also made it exciting and interesting.” 

Ms. Shelton is part of the assessment’s data team studying 

the different data parameters recorded on the F/A-18. “There 

are more than 5,000 parameters that we are looking at to 

understand what role they play in the operations of the avionics, 

and particularly how they affect the environment of the crew in 

the cabin.” She examined several terabytes of historical flight 

data, performed statistical analysis, and developed a cabin 

pressure model to aid engineering investigations.

“When I analyze data, I need to understand all of the 

systems and subsystems. It’s given me the chance to learn 

as much as I can about the engineering design and how it 

integrates with the physiological side, which is a field that is 

new for me.” 

With an undergraduate degree in mathematics, Ms. Shelton 

is currently working on her master’s degree in aerospace 

engineering. “This assessment has been a perfect match for 

me because I love math and statistics, which is a large aspect 

of the project. And I’m really impressed at the talent the NESC 

has available. Everyone I have worked with has been an 

expert in his or her field and has worked well together.” 

NESC Chief Engineer

57 GSFC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

George L. Jackson

GSFC Greenbelt, MD

My experience working 

with the NESC gives me an 

Agency-level perspective along with 

awareness and knowledge about 

how systems engineers across the 

Agency are organized and how they 

approach their work.”

- DR. KAREN WEILAND

 Systems Engineer, GRC

I’m really impressed 

at the talent the NESC 

has available. Everyone I have 

worked with has been an expert 

in his or her field and has 

worked well together.”

- MARTA SHELTON

 Aerospace Engineer, GSFC

NESC Chief Engineer

52 GRC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Robert S. Jankovsky

GRC Cleveland, OH
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) provided technical 

leadership and engineering expertise to 23 new or ongoing 

NESC assessments in 2017. JPL’s expertise in composite 

overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV), avionics, software, 

environmental monitoring, mechanical structures, and modelbased systems engineering (MBSE) supported assessments 

for both the Science and Human Exploration and Operations 

Mission Directorates. Significant contributions included 

qualification testing of an enhanced RAD750 Single-Board 

Computer (SBC), design of experiments to identify driving 

parameters leading to COPV rupture, Exploration Systems 

Development (ESD) Interface Verification and Validation 

(V&V), and characterization of materials compatibility data to 

substantiate the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) 

bellows design. In addition, 50 JPL employees served 

on Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) working with NASA 

Technical Fellows on advancement of Agency engineering 

initiatives. JPL also provides leadership for the COPV Working 

Group and the Robotic Spaceflight TDT. The NESC Chief 

Scientist and Guidance, Navigation, and Control TDT deputy 

reside at JPL.

Perfecting the Art of Systems Engineering through

Enhanced Integrated Systems Analysis

Mr. Marc Sarrel utilizes his expertise in systems 

engineering and software architectures to assist the NESC 

with assessments focused on analyzing cross-program 

integration. Using MBSE, he is assessing cross-program 

external interface integration and compliance between the 

Space Launch System (SLS), MPCV, and Ground Systems 

Development and Operations Programs. 

“I have to decide how data is input and represented in 

the model as well as develop software,” he said. He analyzes 

test beds and V&V plans across the programs to produce 

a report that integrates all of that multi-sourced data. “We 

integrate requirements, functions, and testing activities, which 

helps us analyze these plans for completeness.” His MBSE 

work also includes analyzing providers’ V&V plans for the 

Commercial Crew Program. He is also a part of an MBSE 

pathfinder effort, comparing resource utilization options for 

sending humans to Mars, which helps determine the tradeoffs in each. 

Mr. Sarrel enjoys the challenge of “translating our analysis 

from the world of algorithms into something managers and 

engineers can use.”

Qualifying New Flight Computer

The Rad750 SBC, the flight computer used since 2002 

on many NASA projects and spacecraft, recently began 

suffering the effects of age. This included the obsolescence 

of memory parts and problems associated with the design 

of the memory management unit (MMU). The obsolescence 

problem required a new board design to accommodate more 

advanced and readily available memory chips. The MMU 

issues had caused unexpected resets and would interfere 

with the implementation of new software architectures. 

“Ultimately the root causes of the problems were identified 

and work-arounds were provided for on-going missions,” said 

Mr. James Donaldson, Deputy Division 34 Chief Engineer. “But 

we needed funding to proceed with getting a new SBC board 

qualified that was faster and would address those problems.” 

“The Rad750 is similar to a laptop, but much more 

complex,” added Mr. Jonathan Perret, Avionics Principal 

Engineer. “It runs the spacecraft with built-in features that 

make it recoverable in even the worst conditions. Its design 

and packaging make it tolerant to radiation, and its life expectancy is much longer than your average laptop,” he said. 

With NESC support, Mr. Perret and Mr. Donaldson 

assisted in the verification and testing of the manufacturer’s 

redesign of the Rad750 in order to qualify it for flight use. 

“We reviewed the design and testing of the unit in various environments to ensure it wouldn’t fail during flight,” said 

Mr. Perret, who organized the acquisition effort and interfaced 

with the computer’s customers to understand their requirements. The work was a new challenge for him. “I previously 

worked on spacecraft radios, microcircuit engineering, and 

motor controllers, but had not yet worked on flight computers.” 

Mr. Donaldson spent time with the Rad750 manufacturer 

as part of the review team. “The processor chip, which includes 

the MMU, was redesigned and now runs faster than the previous version,” he said. “It has greatly improved the product.”

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

NESC AT THE CENTERS: Johnson Space Center 15 2017 NESC Technical Update

14 NESC AT THE CENTERS: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 2017 NESC Technical Update

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) and the White Sands 

Test Facility (WSTF) provided engineering analysis, design, and 

test expertise for the continuous operation of the International 

Space Station (ISS), development of the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS), and 

consultation for Commercial Crew Program (CCP) vehicles. 

JSC personnel provided expertise and leadership to numerous 

assessments within the Agency relating to SLS aerosciences; 

Orion crew module heatshield molded Avcoat block bond 

verification; frangible joint designs; lithium-ion batteries thermal 

runaway; and F/A-18 physiological events. The NASA Technical 

Fellows for Environmental Control/Life Support and Passive 

Thermal resident at JSC joined with other Agency discipline 

leaders to strengthen technical community connections. They 

accomplished this through joint sponsorship and participation 

in activities such as the Structures, Loads, and Mechanical 

Systems Young Professionals Forum; the Thermal and Fluids 

Analysis Workshop; and Capability Leadership Teams to help 

define the future of NASA technical disciplines. 

Analyzing Navy F/A-18 Physiological Events

Dr. John Graf is a senior technology development engineer 

within JSC Engineering’s Crew and Thermal Systems Division 

and has worked on a number of different NESC assessments 

during his career. From his first NESC assignment he was 

impressed with NESC’s support of early career engineers 

and promotion of a “trust and respect” culture. Most recently 

Dr. Graf has been engaged in the Navy F/A-18 physiological 

events assessment where he worked to understand the 

complex interaction between the aircraft’s oxygen delivery 

system and the flight crew, and he used this “trust and respect” culture to collaborate with other team members and 

develop a simple conceptual model to understand and explain 

this very complex relationship. According to Dr. Graf, because 

of this culture, “the conceptual model we developed together 

was better than anything we could have done individually, 

and it wouldn’t have been possible without the tone and tenor 

Mr. [Ralph] Roe set in the [NESC’s] beginning.”

Modeling Material Fracture and Frangible Joints

Mr. Claude Bryant is a Senior Structural Analyst with 

Jacobs Technology and has brought his 30 years of finite 

element analysis and materials failure expertise to the modeling and understanding of frangible joint physics. Mr. Bryant 

began his work with a previously created frangible joint 

computational model and extended the underlying physics to 

represent other similar end-notch frangible joint designs, but 

quickly transitioned to material properties research and model 

development. Mr. Bryant used both his vast experience and 

tenacious research to understand and model the behavior 

of Al 7075-T7351 fracture properties and predict model 

responses to different lots of material under the extremely high 

strain rates experienced in frangible joints. While performing 

this high level work, he also mentored a junior structural 

analyst. When asked about his experience in the assessment 

Mr. Bryant said, “This is the third NESC team I have had the 

pleasure and privilege to be a member of. The collection of 

cross-disciplinary talent is always humbling. Everyone learns 

something about subjects outside of their expertise. I’m continually impressed by how NESC management ensures that 

all team members contribute meaningful work while meeting 

the project goals.”

COPV Buckling and Fire Hazard

Mr. Steve Peralta is WSTF’s Oxygen Compatibility 

Assessment Core Capability Project Manager, and has 

extensive experience in the oxygen compatibility of materials 

when exposed to enriched oxygen environments. He was 

tapped to investigate the SpaceX Falcon 9 carbon overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV) that contain helium, are 

immersed in sub-cooled liquid oxygen, and were suspected 

to be the cause of the Falcon 9 pad explosion during a 

static fire test. Mr. Peralta’s team analyzed the COPV use, 

identified gaps in understanding, and executed testing to better 

understand the risks. He found that this particular application 

is much more complex than originally thought and helped 

bring to bear additional expertise to the problem. Mr. Peralta’s 

efforts on this and other assessments have benefitted from the 

NESC’s provision of statistics analysis expertise, which he says 

“have been invaluable in helping us with design of experiments 

for some of our oxygen tests and allowed us to move toward 

analyzing and applying data in much more valuable ways.” 

NESC Chief Engineer

81 JPL employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Kimberly A. Simpson

JPL

Pasadena, CA

NESC Chief Engineer

67 JSC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

T. Scott West

JSC

Houston, TX

I enjoy the challenge of 

translating our analysis 

from the world of algorithms 

into something managers and 

engineers can use.”

- MARC SARREL

 Systems Engineer, JPL
The NESC was involved in numerous activities for 

programs at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) including 

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) frangible joint testing 

and analysis; CCP composite overwrapped pressure vessel 

analysis; CCP entry, descent, and landing modeling; Ground 

Systems Development and Operations Orion crew module 

recovery sea condition dynamics, and Exploration Systems 

Development (ESD) modal test analysis. Likewise, KSC provided expertise to 20 different NESC activities, and also to 

multiple Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) in 2017. The NASA 

Technical Fellows for Electrical Power and Materials reside at 

KSC and rely on KSC expertise in many of their activities. KSC 

was engaged in a variety of NESC assessments including 

CCP frangible joint sensitivity testing; CCP propellant loading 

assessment; CCP electrical power systems review; ESD 

independent flight modeling; and non-linear slosh damping 

analysis for launch vehicles. The NESC also invested in 

KSC’s electronics laboratory to work on Agency issues.

Leveraging Expertise in Structural Dynamics

“No matter how experienced you are in structural dynamics, you can always be surprised,” said Dr. Ayman 

Abdallah, the Structural Dynamics Discipline Expert for the 

Launch Services Program (LSP) at KSC. LSP has managed 

for NASA the launch and selection of rockets for robotic 

missions since 1998. Dr. Abdallah, whose expertise includes 

loads and coupled loads analyses (CLA), said each mission 

is unique. “Each presents a problem that you want to solve to 

understand why you are seeing certain responses in the CLA.” 

As a member of the NESC’s Loads and Dynamics TDT 

and CLA Discipline Guide, Dr. Abdallah lends his expertise 

to NESC assessments, most recently to help develop a fast 

CLA analysis. The new analysis method captures changes 

in payload finite element models without having to rerun the 

CLA to update the integrated system dynamic responses (see 

page 51). 

This ties in well with Dr. Abdallah’s day-to-day work to 

analyze low frequency vibrations and the loads they generate 

on the launch vehicle and spacecraft. “We must make sure 

nothing breaks from vibrations you see at launch until the 

spacecraft separates in orbit,” he said. Dr. Abdallah and the 

LSP Structural Loads Team simulate all critical flight events 

to determine spacecraft and launch vehicle responses to 

loads, which include accelerations, displacements, forces, 

and stress responses, performing at least three loads cycles 

prior to launch. “We conduct analyses early in the mission to 

provide design loads to the spacecraft program, another when 

designs are finalized, and a final verification loads cycle,” he 

said. The analyses help provide independent verification and 

validation of the launch vehicle contractor’s results. 

Preserving Columbia’s Legacy

Shortly after the loss of the Columbia Space Shuttle in 

2003, the NESC was organized to help prevent another such 

tragedy from happening again. As the Apollo Challenger 

Columbia Lessons Learned Program (ACCLLP) Manager,

Mr. Michael Ciannilli has been on a similar mission. The 

former NASA Test Director for shuttle launch and landing 

operations facilitates extensive lessons-learned tours and 

fields requests from researchers and academia who want to 

learn the lessons Columbia has to teach. 

He spends his days among more than 84,000 artifacts 

from Columbia, housed in a 7,000-square-foot room in KSC’s 

Vehicle Assembly Building. “I’ve spent years bringing people 

through this room and seeing the impact the story of Columbia 

and her crew has on our guests,” said Mr. Ciannilli, who works 

to keep those lessons learned from getting lost to history. 

“As time moves on, connections to past events recede and 

lessons are no longer as effective as they could be to keep us 

from repeating mistakes. We want to bring back those lessons 

learned in innovative and effective ways.” That includes tours 

offering a storytelling experience, having key people share 

experiences, providing artifacts to universities doing research 

in system failures, training courses, and working with the 

media to carry Columbia’s message forward. 

“The NESC has also collaborated with the ACCLLP 

through funding, and both organizations see great potential 

in continuing this partnership in the future,” he said. “I view 

Columbia as still having a mission to perform — to change the 

future for the better,” said Mr. Ciannilli. “We hope these stories 

help save lives and make other missions more successful.” 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

NESC AT THE CENTERS: Langley Research Center 17 2017 NESC Technical Update

16 NESC AT THE CENTERS: Kennedy Space Center

 2017 NESC Technical Update

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

The Langley Research Center (LaRC) continues to 

support the NESC mission to address the Agency’s high 

risk programs and projects. LaRC engineers and scientists 

contributed wide-ranging technical expertise to lead and support multiple NESC assessments. The assessments reached 

across the Aeronautics Research, Human Exploration and 

Operations, Science, and the Space Technology Mission 

Directorates. LaRC supported all NESC Technical Discipline 

Teams, and is the host Center for the NESC Director’s Office, 

Principal Engineers Office, NESC Integration Office, and 

the Management and Technical Support Office. The NASA 

Technical Fellows for Aerosciences, Flight Mechanics, Nondestructive Evaluation, Sensors and Instrumentation, and 

Software reside at LaRC. 

Simulating Free Flight in the VST

Inside NASA’s 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel (VST),

Ms. Vanessa Aubuchon set aloft scale models of SpaceX 

Dragon vehicles and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

(MPCV) in a variety of tests. The aerospace engineer was 

working on an NESC assessment in collaboration with 

SpaceX and the Commercial Crew Program to evaluate the 

dynamic stability characteristics of the Dragon vehicles. 

“We’re looking at cargo Dragon 1, which is flying to the 

International Space Station and the crewed version, Dragon 

2, and comparing them against Orion crew module models,” 

she said. The assessment will provide SpaceX with dynamic 

test data as well as advance NASA and industry’s ability to 

predict dynamic capsule stability and flight performance. 

“We’ve run several model configurations using different 

test techniques to determine the configuration effects on the 

dynamic stability of these capsules,” said Ms. Aubuchon. 

“Since the capsules essentially fall through the atmosphere 

at the end of reentry, the vertical wind in the VST is perfect to 

simulate that.” 

Developing Innovative Test Designs 

Dr. James Reeder’s materials and structures expertise 

was leveraged for several NESC assessments in 2017 involving 

the MPCV Avcoat heatshield design and stress rupture studies 

for composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV). 

As a research engineer, Dr. Reeder was instrumental in 

developing a special testing process to determine the root 

cause of cracks that developed during the Exploration Flight 

Test 1 (EFT-1) heatshield curing process. “We developed a 

special apparatus to allow us to control the strain levels on the 

test specimen as the temperature changed,” said Dr. Reeder, 

“including innovative ways to control and filter strain signals 

coming from the test equipment.” The heatshield was repaired 

and successfully flew on EFT-1. 

He also helped design a test program to predict a certain 

failure mode in pressurized COPVs caused by stress rupture. 

Because testing numerous COPVs would be cost and time 

prohibitive, Dr. Reeder and the NESC team designed a process 

to test COPV strands, which allowed them to apply varying 

loads and extrapolate results equivalent to 10 years of stress. 

Dr. Reeder appreciates the NESC’s emphasis on the 

technical work. “We can concentrate on figuring out the right 

answer, and that’s wonderful,” he said. 

Modeling the SLS Flight Trajectory

An aerospace engineer working in advanced vehicle 

concept development, Mr. Paul Tartabini has been evaluating 

Mars reentry vehicles and other vehicle concepts for human 

missions to Mars. In a departure from this conceptual work, 

he has been assisting the NESC with the Exploration Systems 

Independent Modeling and Simulation Assessment. 

“We are developing independent models and simulations 

focused on the Space Launch System (SLS). It’s the most 

complex simulation I’ve ever worked on,” he said. The simulation allows the NESC team to look at critical events in 

the SLS trajectory. Mr. Tartabini is the lead for the booster 

separation team. “We’re performing clearance analysis of 

the booster separation from the core stage to ensure there 

is no recontact. Our NESC analysis provides verification and 

validation of the analysis done by the SLS Program,” he said. 

“Since the other part of my life is spent working on 

advanced concepts and systems analysis, it’s helpful to have 

this knowledge of real flight vehicles. Our branch is always 

trying to bridge the gap between concept and flight.”

NESC Chief Engineer

184 LaRC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Paul W. Roberts

LaRC Hampton, VA

NESC Chief Engineer

27 KSC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Stephen A. Minute

KSC

Brevard County, FL

I view Columbia as still 

having a mission to 

perform — to change the future 

for the better. We hope these 

stories help save lives and make 

other missions more successful.”

- MICHAEL CIANNILLI

 ACCLLP Manager, KSC 
In 2017, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provided engineer, scientist, and technician subject matter expert 

(SME) support to 27 NESC assessments, investigations, 

and special studies. These activities involved the areas of 

exploration systems development, space operations and 

environmental effects, science, and cross-cutting discipline 

activities. Some of the more significant efforts include: 

composite shell buckling, additive manufacturing, model-based 

systems engineering (MBSE), high temperature insulations, 

advanced chemical propulsion, modeling and simulation of 

complex launch vehicle/spacecraft interfaces, and human 

factors task analyses. The NASA Technical Fellows for 

Propulsion and Space Environments, and the Discipline 

and Capability Leader Deputies for the Human Factors, 

Nondestructive Evaluation, Propulsion, Nuclear Power and 

Propulsion, Software, and Space Environments Technical 

Discipline Teams (TDT) are resident at MSFC. MSFC provided critical facility and analytical support to numerous 

NESC investigations and all of the 21 NESC TDTs with more 

than 124 SMEs.

Human Factors TDT and

Capability Leadership Support

Mr. Charlie Dischinger joined the MSFC Crew Systems 

Branch 23 years ago. He is a team lead in the Systems 

Analysis Branch and in 2010 was asked by Dr. Cynthia Null, 

the NASA Technical Fellow for Human Factors, to become 

her TDT discipline deputy. In 2015, that responsibility grew to 

include being the capability deputy for Human Factors. 

In these capacities, he works with the NASA Technical 

Fellow for Human Factors to identify skills and knowledge 

needs for future exportation and aeronautical systems. The 

NESC has given him the opportunity to work with outstanding 

human factors specialists from across the Agency, and from 

other Government, academic, and commercial entities. This 

experience provides him with the opportunity to participate in 

and formulate technical assessments outside program-driven 

needs, and to be an advocate for human factors as the central 

design focus of NASA programs, at all levels of the Agency. 

A portion of these responsibilities in the past year include 

being the Agency representative to the ASTM International 

F47 Working Group on Commercial Spaceflight, participation 

in the annual Department of Defense Unmanned Systems 

Integration Workshop, and involvement in the Office of Safety 

and Mission Assurance-led human factors team supporting 

mishap investigations.

Systems Engineering TDT Support - 

MBSE Pathfinder Payload Adapter Team Lead

Mr. Terry Sanders has worked in space programs on 

two Spacelab missions, as an Operations Controller for the 

International Space Station, as a systems engineer on the 

first Material Science Research Rack, on the Constellation 

Program Ares-1 Upper Stage and Ares-5 designs, and 

currently on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program.

Mr. Sanders is participating in the second year of the 

NESC MBSE Pathfinder effort, which has a goal of growing the 

NASA MBSE user community. The Pathfinder effort is being 

used to find, develop, and promote MBSE best practices for 

NASA programs and projects, and to develop and implement 

an Agency-wide infrastructure for MBSE-related tools. Four 

teams are working on problems important to NASA, and Mr. 

Sanders leads the Payload Adapter Team. This team focused 

on alternate solutions for the SLS Block 1B Payload Adapter 

currently being designed. The SLS Block 1B will launch the 

first crewed mission of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. 

The modeling effort was to create a system model in 

MagicDraw using the System Modeling Language (SysML), 

develop a user interface for added hardware, and create a 

three-dimensional model in Creo computer aided design 

software. This system model could be updated from SysML/

MagicDraw model and then verified based on the Creo stress 

and loads analyses results. 

The team stayed focused and were able to fulfill their 

major task requirements for the current year. This pathfinder 

effort has shown that the Agency systems engineer has 

another tool to use to tie together other models for a more 

complete, less ambiguous view of the system being designed. 

After all, “MBSE is really model-based engineering using 

systems engineering processes.”

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

NESC Chief Engineer

124 MSFC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Steven J. Gentz

MSFC

Huntsville, AL

NESC AT THE CENTERS: Stennis Space Center 19 2017 NESC Technical Update

18 NESC AT THE CENTERS: Marshall Space Flight Center

 2017 NESC Technical Update

The Stennis Space Center (SSC) provided expert technical support to the NESC, including membership on the 

Assessment of Lead H2 Pop During SLS RS-25 Start effort. 

SSC has members on several NESC Technical Discipline 

Teams (TDT) including new members on the Avionics and 

Systems Engineering TDTs. SSC enabled the open exchange 

of ideas and collaborative decision-making by utilizing the 

unique locale, transportation capabilities, and cost effectiveness by hosting TDT yearly face-to-face meetings at SSC facilities and nearby Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans.

Modeling and Simulating Explosions

In an assessment to predict and evaluate the aeroacoustic loads induced by the rapid external combustion 

of hydrogen (H2) during the startup of the Space Launch 

System (SLS) main engines, the NESC enlisted the expertise 

of Dr. Daniel Allgood, who has developed a methodology 

for modeling propellant explosion events. The assessment 

follows a previous assessment in which Dr. Allgood provided 

his expertise to understanding the launch environments generated by SLS nozzle flow transient acoustics. 

Dr. Allgood works in the Design and Analysis Division 

within the Engineering and Test Directorate at SSC and has 

spent the last 2 years modeling hydrogen and hydrocarbon 

detonations. In 2015, during another NESC assessment, Dr. 

Allgood modeled explosions to help predict potential damage 

to flight hardware in the Stennis E Test Complex. “We needed to 

understand the pressure waves generated from an explosion 

and how they would propagate through the test facility so 

that we could find ways to mitigate the effects,” he said. 

Following that assessment, he was tasked with determining 

and validating a best methodology to model H2 explosions. 

To develop that methodology, Dr. Allgood studied experimental tests done at universities and government laboratories, modeling those tests and using them to validate his 

simulations. “I wanted to make sure I could predict whether 

a detonation or explosion event would occur, what pressure 

would be generated as a function of distance from the source, 

and how it would interact with the surrounding structure.” 

His modeling approach was a success and has been 

used to validate a variety of explosion events contained within 

vessels or in open air. “As a result, I have been able to support 

some H2 explosion testing at our B Test Stand in support of 

the Space Launch System Program,” he said. His modeling 

approach will be used during the NESC H2 assessment to 

help determine the loads generated on the engine, nozzle, 

and surrounding components should H2 be present at SLS 

engine start up. 

“My graduate work was in modeling detonations,” said 

Dr. Allgood. “It’s nice to continue that same work.” 

Cross-Agency Software Development

As a software engineer, Mr. Alex Elliot supports ground 

testing of space flight hardware to ensure a safe launch, 

which includes gathering physical sensor data for analysis as 

well as operationally testing flight control systems. Mr. Elliot 

brings his expertise to the Software TDT, which supports 

assessments for the NESC. 

“Through the NESC and TDT, I have gained experience 

in Agency-level efforts to make software and hardware safer 

for use in critical missions while bringing SSC experience and 

lessons learned to the larger team,” said Mr. Elliot.

Mr. Elliot meets with software experts from across the 

Agency to discuss software processes and how Agency 

standards are applied during software development. In his 

work with the NESC he has been instrumental in developing 

a software application that will be available across other 

Centers. “We’re trying to make things accessible across 

Center boundaries,” he said, which can be challenging as 

each Center may have different platforms and procedures 

regarding software requirements. 

Working across NASA Centers also brings rewards, he 

added. “I like the opportunity to find out what is going on at 

other Centers, seeing the different data acquisition systems, 

and everything that is different from what I see day-to-day. 

You get a bigger picture view when you step outside of your 

own Center, your own comfort zone,” he said. “You often 

find that many people deal with the same issues as you and 

sometimes they have better solutions. And it helps when you 

work on a multi-Center project to have a little of that outside 

Center knowledge.” 

STENNIS SPACE CENTER

NESC Chief Engineer

16 SSC employees supported

NESC work in FY17

Michael D. Smiles

SSC

Hancock County, MS

Through the NESC 

and TDT, I have gained 

experience in Agency-level 

efforts to make software and 

hardware safer for use in critical 

missions while bringing SSC 

experience and lessons learned 

to the larger team.”

- ALEX ELLIOT

 Software Engineer, SSC

MBSE is really 

model-based 

engineering using systems 

engineering processes.”

- TERRY SANDERS

 Systems Engineer, MSFC
NESC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS 21 2017 NESC Technical Update

Illustration of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle during Exploration Mission-1

NESC Knowledge Products

The NESC is engaged in activities to identify, retain, and share critical knowledge in order 

to meet our future challenges. To disseminate that knowledge to engineers — within NASA, 

industry, and academia — the NESC offers a wide variety of knowledge products that can be 

readily accessed from technical assessments reports to technical bulletins to video libraries.

Capturing and Preserving Critical

Knowledge for the Future

The detailed engineering

and analysis available as 

Technical Memorandums (TM)

Written by members of the NESC and 

NESC Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) 

to capture and convey new knowledge 

learned on NESC assessments

Annual summary of NESC assessment 

activities including lessons learned, 

technical bulletins, innovative techniques, 

discipline features, technical journal, and 

conference publications

Led by NASA Technical Fellows, 

provide the primary workforce for NESC 

assessments and support activities, and 

include communities of practice

NESC

Technical

Update

Assessment

Engineering 

Reports

ntrs.nasa.gov

Technical

Bulletins

Technical

Papers and 

Conference 

Proceedings

Lessons

Learned

Captured knowledge

or understanding gained

on NESC assessments

that would benefit the

work of others

NESC

Technical

Discipline Teams

nen.nasa.gov

NESC Academy:

Video library of 760+ informative 

lessons relevant to current 

NASA issues and challenges

nescacademy.nasa.gov

LLIS: 

Agency-Level Lessons 

Learned Information 

System (LLIS)

llis.nasa.gov

nesc.nasa.gov

NESC

Assessments

and

Support Activities

Critical knowledge captured from 

NESC assessments in the form of 

new engineering information or best 

practices in a one-page format

20 NESC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS

 2017 NESC Technical Update
The NESC Academy was established to enable effective 

knowledge capture and transfer, ensuring hard-won technical 

information remains accessible to NASA engineers.

The NESC Academy presents live and on-demand content 

from researchers, engineers, and field experts in 21 technical 

disciplines relevant to the design, development, test, and operation of NASA programs and projects. It delivers more than 760 

videos containing interviews, tutorials, lectures, and lessons 

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

and slides, powerful search capabilities, downloadable course 

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

scientists and engineers as well as recognized discipline experts 

from industry and academia. 

The NESC Academy offers the viewer a virtual, self-paced 

classroom experience based on a state-of-the-art video player 

for education, which enables dual video streams for content, 

typically one for the presenter and another for presentation 

materials. Desktop and mobile devices are supported.

A popular feature of the NESC Academy is live technical webcasts provided as a service to the discipline communities, which 

are archived for later viewing. Viewers can send in questions to 

the presenter during the broadcasts for two-way interaction. A 

total of 760 videos have been released as of September 2017.

NESC Academy:

Informative Lessons

Relevant to Current NASA

Issues and Challenges

nescacademy.nasa.gov

The NESC Academy video catalog is available at

MOST VIEWED VIDEOS

By Discipline (January - September 2017)

Aerosciences

Avionics

Electrical

Power

Environmental 

Control/Life Support

Flight Mechanics

Guidance, Navigation, 

and Control

Human Factors

Loads and

Dynamics

Materials

Mechanical Systems

Nondestructive 

Evaluation

Passive Thermal

Propulsion

Sensors and 

Instrumentation

Structures

Systems Engineering

Other NESC

Lessons Learned on Past Manned Spaceflight 

Programs that Seem to Have Been Forgotten

Fundamentals of Electromagnetic Compatibility, 

Part 1 - Introduction

Short Course on Li-Ion Batteries: Fundamental 

Concepts, Heating Mechanisms, and 

Simulation Techniques

Exploring Mars with the NASA Mars Science 

Laboratory Rover

Standard Check-Cases for Six-Degree-ofFreedom Flight Vehicle Simulations

Fundamentals of Spacecraft Control-Structure 

Interaction

Introduction to the International Space Station

Shock and Vibration: 01.

Natural Frequencies, Part 1

Selected Apollo and Shuttle Lessons Learned

An Overview of Fastener Requirements in the 

New NASA-STD-5020

Introduction of Probability of Detection (POD)

for Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)

Common Thermal Modeling Mistakes, Part 1

Saturn Launch Vehicles: Engine Restart

and Propellant Control in Zero-g

Nano Chem Sensors

Testing and Analysis of Advanced Composite 

Tow-Steered Shells

Model-Centric Engineering, Part 1: Introduction 

to Model-Based Systems Engineering

Creativity through Functional Abstraction

NESC Academy videos have received

78,945+ VIEWS SINCE INCEPTION,

with more than 21,000 views in CY16 alone, and 

projections far exceed that number of views in 

CY17, illustrating the popularity of this approach 

among NESC Academy users. 

TOP 6 MOST VIEWED VIDEOS

January - September 2017

Aerosciences

Lessons Learned on Past Manned Spaceflight

Programs that Seem to Have Been Forgotten #2

#4

#6

#1

#3

#5

Human Factors

Introduction to the International Space Station

Passive Thermal

Short Course on Li-Ion Batteries: Fundamental Concepts, 

Heating Mechanisms and Simulation Techniques

Systems Engineering

Model-Centric Engineering, Part 1:

Introduction to Model-Based Systems Engineering

Passive Thermal

Common Thermal Modeling Mistakes, Part 1 

NESC ACADEMY 23 2017 NESC Technical Update

22 NESC ACADEMY

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Guidance, Navigation, and Control

Fundamentals of Spacecraft Control-Structure Interaction

TOTAL PAGE VIEWS

as of September 2017

396

3,737

2011 2012

5,768

2013

6,334

2014

17,635

2015

21,841

2016

Views

1,000

0

15,000

5,000

20,000

10,000

30,000

22,271

2017

CY2017 Projection 27,000
The NESC conducts technical

assessments or provides technical support 

in response to requests for assistance. 

The following pages present some of the 

technical activities completed in 2017, 

categorized by NESC Selection Priority.

COPV Liner Inspection

Capability Development

Composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV) are widely 

used in launch vehicles and spacecraft to hold pressurized 

liquids and gases. Reliable inspection methods are needed for 

human-rated programs. Following the failure of a COPV during 

a commercial launch vehicle on-pad engine test, the Materials 

and Components Laboratories Office at White Sands Test 

Facility requested the NESC develop and assess the capability 

of scanning eddy current nondestructive evaluation methods for 

COPV liner flaw detection. The industry standard methodology, 

dye penetrant, has limitations on the minimum flaw size that 

can be reliably detected. Through the assessment, the NESC 

was able to develop a modified multi-purpose nondestructive 

evaluation scanner that demonstrated effective capabilities 

for COPV liner thickness mapping, enhanced flaw detection, 

surface profilometry, and laser imaging.

This work was performed by LaRC, JSC, JPL, MSFC,

and WSTF. NASA/TM-2016-219369

COPV Inspection Station

3D scans of lightweight liner

Indent on Dome Axial Diameter

Variations

Apparent Smaller 

Diameter at Top Due 

to Precession

ISS Solar Array Wing Mast Shadowing

The International Space Station’s (ISS) eight solar array wings provide primary power to run onboard systems and equipment. 

Each wing is made up of two photovoltaic blankets supported by a 105-foot-long mast that is deployable/retractable from a 

canister at the mast base. The mast is a complex folding mechanism composed of multiple longeron lattice structures. At certain 

attitudes, parts of the wing can cast a shadow on the mast or on a neighboring mast, causing an asymmetric thermally-induced 

strain on the longerons, potentially exceeding the mast limit load, resulting in longeron buckling. The NESC developed thermal 

and structural models of the solar array mast for use in on-orbit simulations that can improve understanding of mast performance 

and better inform ISS mission planning and operations. This work was performed by LaRC, JPL, JSC, and MSFC.

Mitigating the Severity of

Li-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway

In the wake of a lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery thermal runaway on Boeing’s Dreamliner 787 aircraft, 

NASA assessed the small cell Li-Ion batteries used 

in Agency assets and updated its battery safety 

standard. The ISS Chief Engineer requested the 

NESC assess initiatives intended to reduce the 

severity/consequence of thermal runaway events 

within Li-Ion batteries used on the ISS. The NESC 

effort has helped Agency programs meet new requirements for flight battery designs by performing 

thermal analysis, testing, and design work to develop thermal runaway mitigation options for small 

cell Li-Ion batteries. New battery designs are now 

ready for deployment on the ISS. 

This work was performed by KSC, ARC, GRC, GSFC, 

JSC, LaRC, and WSTF. NASA/TM-2017-219649

Deployed Solar Array Wing

ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 1 25 2017 NESC Technical Update

Assessment and

Support Activities

Example of induced thermal runaway in a Li-Ion battery.

Technical Support of Projects

in the Flight Phase

Priority 1 Completed

Assessments

ASSESSMENTS:

Typically include independent test and/

or analyses, the results of which are peer 

reviewed by the NESC Review Board and 

documented in engineering reports.

SUPPORT:

Typically include providing technical 

expertise for consulting on program/

project issues, supporting design reviews 

and other short-term technical activities.

In-Progress Requests

for Technical Assessments

and Support

PRIORITY

1

PRIORITY

3

PRIORITY

5

PRIORITY

2

PRIORITY

4

PRIORITY 1

Projects in the 

flight phase

PRIORITY 3

Known problems

not being addressed 

by any project

PRIORITY 5

Work to improve

a system

PRIORITY 2

Projects in the 

design phase

PRIORITY 4

Work to avoid 

potential future 

problems

1710%%

10% 9%

10% 5%

6610%%

3%
Mitigating the Risk of Defective Bearing Balls

Center burst cracks are among many flaws that can impact the performance, operation, and life of a bearing’s rolling element. 

The Science Mission Directorate was aware of potential bearing issues that could affect NASA missions. The NESC assembled a 

team of NASA and industry subject matter experts to examine all available test reports on defective bearing balls to determine the 

likelihood and associated risk to NASA programs and projects. The team concluded that only bearing balls with 100% inspections 

and full certifications should be used in NASA mission-critical mechanisms.

This work was performed by GSFC, GRC, JPL, JSC, and LaRC.

ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 1 27 2017 NESC Technical Update

26 ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 1

 2017 NESC Technical Update

PRIORITY 1: WORK IN PROGRESS

In-Progress Assessments

• Human Spaceflight-1 Mishap Recurring Factor Study

• ISS/Extravehicular Activity Lithium-ion Battery 

Thermal Runaway Severity Reduction Measures

• Minimum Wear Life for the ISS Pump Control Valve 

Package Rotor Bearing System

• Multi-Purpose Oxygen Generators Swelling

• ISS Plasma Interaction Model Independent Review

• Express Logistics Carrier Reverse Capacitor Follow-on Testing

• Calorimetry for Lithium-ion Battery Thermal Runaway

• Deep Space Climate Observatory CompHub Reset Anomaly

• Juno Check Valve Anomaly - Recovery Assessment

• Validation of ISS Lithium-ion Main Battery’s Thermal 

Runaway Mitigation Analysis and Design Features

In-Progress Support Activities

• Support to Launch Services Provider Hardware 

Re-Use Assessment

• Space Station Remote Manipulator System Latching End 

Effector Snare Cable Lubrication and Wire Breakage

• Rapid Slews for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

• Chandra X-Ray Observatory Advanced Composition 

Explorer Real-Time Data Support

• Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer Wide Range Pump Qualification Model Failure Review Board Support

• Extravehicular Mobility Unit Water Pump Redesign 

• NASA Docking System Non-Compliance Review

• Commercial Crew Program Failure Investigation Support

PRIORITY 1: COMPLETED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Example of a center burst crack material flaw created during the metal-forming process.

DEPLOYED

FOR ATTACHMENT 

TO EMU

STOWED

ATTACHED

(NORMAL EVA

CONFIGURATION)

ATTACHED

(HCM RELEASED)

ATTACHED

(SELF-RESCUE MODE)

HAND

CONTROLLER

MODULE

PROPULSION

MODULE

SAFER Battery Assessment

During extravehicular activities (EVA), ISS astronauts wear 

a self-contained maneuvering unit called Simplified Aid for 

EVA Rescue (SAFER), that provides free-flying mobility to 

return to the ISS should they become free-floating. Used 

only in emergency situations, the backpacks use lithiumion batteries, whose safety came into question following 

thermal runaway failures on commercial aircraft. The ISS 

Program Chief Engineer requested the NESC evaluate the 

SAFER battery against standards, lessons learned from 

the commercial failures, and other EVA battery redesigns. 

NESC tests and analyses resulted in suggestions for a future 

battery redesign to help mitigate thermal runaway risk.

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

Organizational Resilience

in the ISS Program

The ISS is a multifaceted, complex combination of people 

and technology functioning as a sociotechnical system with 

a U.S. Operating Segment that is managed by the NASA 

ISS Program. The ISS Program is responsible for making 

risk-informed decisions for operations and safety in both 

flight and ground operations. An emerging approach to risk 

management, resilience engineering focuses on an organization’s ability to continuously accommodate change and 

recognize subtle cues signaling impending disruptions, 

changes or pressures. To assist the ISS Program in identifying 

and reducing risks to their organizational resilience, the NESC 

Human Factors Technical Discipline Team examined the ISS 

Program against the principles of resilience engineering. The 

NESC team collected data from documents, observation of 

real time operations, and interviews with ISS personnel. The 

team provided recommendations intended to strengthen the 

adaptive capacity of the ISS Program.

This work was performed by ARC, JSC, LaRC, and MSFC.

Photo: SAFER testing.

Illustration: SAFER mounting on 

extravehicular mobility unit.

ISS Mission Control
Visiting vehicles at ISS

(from top):

SpaceX Dragon 2

(illustration)

Boeing CST-100 

Starliner (illustration)

Soyuz MS-03

crew ship

MPCV Crew Module Orbital Tube Weld Computed Radiography

Film radiography is currently used to inspect numerous tube welds on the Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The film process requires substantial time and expense, thus the MPCV 

Chief Engineer requested the NESC assist in assessing the capability of computed radiography 

(CR) methods, which use equipment similar to conventional radiography, but replace film with 

resuable digital imaging plates. The assessment evaluated commercially available digital radiography systems using a representative set of tube-weld specimens with characterized real and 

simulated flaws. The NESC team recommended the use of CR for tube weld inspection.

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

NASA/TM-2016-219368

Detection of a pore in a tube weld using x-ray film, computed radiography, and digital radiography.

X-ray Film Computed Radiography Digital Radiography

Samples of test tubes

with circumferential welds that 

included various flaws.

Reaction Wheel Performance for NASA Missions

Reaction wheels (RW) are widely used in civilian and military spacecraft to provide attitude control torque and momentum 

management functions. RWs rotate the spacecraft and are frequently used for stabilizing, slewing/orienting, and precision 

pointing spacecraft platforms. Typical RW actuators consist of a rotating inertia flywheel, a wheel suspension system (almost 

exclusively lubricated bearing balls), a wheel drive motor, and wheel drive electronics encased in a wheel housing/enclosure. 

Because their failure can severely compromise science data collection and reduce mission life, the NESC set out to identify best 

practices for promoting and maximizing RW life and study known wheel anomalies to better understand the failure modes. 

This work was performed by GSFC and LaRC. NASA/TM-2017-219589

Example of RW units and associated control electronics. 

Photo Credit: Bradford Engineering B.V.

The Kepler Spacecraft relied on 

reaction wheels for precision pointing 

during its primary mission. (illustration)

ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2 29 2017 NESC Technical Update

Entry TPS MMOD

Damage Risk and Mitigation

for Crewed Vehicles

Possible damage by micrometeoroid and orbital 

debris (MMOD) to the thermal protection system 

(TPS) of ISS crewed visiting vehicles (VV) is becoming a concern. The TPS that is critical for safe 

reentry can be exposed to the MMOD flux for long 

durations while docked at the ISS. The NESC was 

requested to provide the ISS and Commercial Crew 

Programs with a high-level planning tool that could 

clarify the near-term capability and collaborative 

planning needed to more thoroughly understand 

and mitigate MMOD impact damage risk to TPS. 

The NESC Team reviewed space shuttle damage 

assessment capabilities and TPS lessons learned; 

ISS VV damage tolerance requirements; detection 

and inspection technologies, and TPS damage 

mitigation options. In addition, part of this effort was 

applicable to the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.

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

Technical Support

of Projects in the

Design Phase

Priority 2

Completed

Assessments
ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 31 2017 NESC Tecnical Update

CCP Avionics Architecture Review

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Chief Engineer requested the NESC investigate the fault 

tolerance and redundancy of a CCP partner’s proposed flight avionics systems architecture for 

crewed missions. The assessment’s scope included validating the level of fault tolerance and 

redundancy of the flight avionics systems against CCP requirements, and identifying candidate 

electrical, electronic, and electromagnetic commercial off-the-shelf parts used for in-depth review.

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

Peer Review of Commercial Crew Aerodynamics Databases

As NASA’s CCP partners continue development of their spacecraft and launch systems, CCP requested the NESC assess the approach, practices, and status of the development of a partner’s 

aerodynamics databases, which predict vehicle aerodynamic performance through the flight envelope. The NESC team focused primarily on launch including aborts and entry, but the entire 

flight envelope was examined.

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

Spacecraft Electrical Power System Review

At the request of the CCP Chief Engineer, the NESC formed a team of Agency power specialists 

to evaluate the electrical power system design of a commercial partner’s spacecraft. The team 

assessed the design against conventional NASA design practices, then assessed risks in areas 

of significant difference, which would better inform methodologies for future testing. 

This work was performed by KSC, GSFC, and LaRC.

CCP V&V Integration and Mapping

To enhance its potential for mission success and reduce technical risk, the CCP requested the 

NESC perform an independent assessment of its commercial providers’ verification and validation 

(V&V) flowdown, responses, and traceability of CCP requirements. The NESC Team reviewed 

the CCP-level planning approach, the partner’s V&V planning responses, and the integration and 

flow of the V&V implementation between the two. Model-based systems engineering was used to 

identify any potential gaps or disconnects in the systems engineering approach. 

This work was performed by GSFC, AFRC, JPL, JSC, KSC, and LaRC. NASA/TM-2017-219624

Assessing Risks of Frangible Joint Designs

To provide the CCP with confidence in the use of frangible joints (FJ) for human-rated launch 

vehicles and other human-rated applications, the NESC conducted an independent testing 

program of several end-notch FJ designs. The joints are typically used by NASA in the 

instantaneous separation of spacecraft structures such as launch vehicle stages and payload 

fairings. The multi-year assessment involved thorough testing of FJ assemblies, which yielded 

more than 100,000,000 records of test data due to the use of high-speed video and data 

acquisition. These data helped develop models that would assess the performance, sensitivities, 

and reliability of FJs. This investigation also resulted in the development of two innovative testing 

techniques, described on pages 44-47.

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

Illustration of Commercial Crew Program Providers’ Spacecraft: SpaceX Dragon 2 (top) and Boeing CST-100 Starliner (bottom).

Assessment of the Mars 2020 Backshell Pressure Field for MEDLI 2

The Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrumentation 2 (MEDLI2) Project will instrument the 

Mars 2020 aero backshell to record surface pressure data that could determine the backshell’s 

contribution to the spacecraft’s axial force coefficient during Mars entry. While available Viking wind 

tunnel data suggested a location for the single MEDLI2 pressure port, preliminary computational 

fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis indicated the location was not optimal in that it may not represent 

the pressure over the majority of backshell area. The MEDLI2 Project requested NESC assistance 

in determining optimal placement of a pressure transducer. The NESC team conducted a freeflight ballistic range test program using both scale models containing onboard pressure transducers 

and range instrumentation. Data products included measured backshell pressures. The data products also supported quantification of drag coefficient reconstruction uncertainties. Testing also 

supported investigation of blunt body separated wake flows in a near flight-like environment. 

This work performed by LaRC, ARC, JPL, and JSC. NASA/ 2017-219666

Mars 2020 spacecraft at Mars entry. (illustration)

The Terra satellite, 

orbiting at 705 

kilometers, contributed 

data to this evaluation.

Evaluation of MMOD Risk Predictions

with Available On-orbit Assets

The NESC evaluated the accuracy of NASA’s MMOD risk modeling/assessment process used for 

robotic spacecraft in orbits higher than the ISS (above approximately 400 kilometers). To evaluate 

the entire MMOD risk assessment process at these altitudes, the NESC team compared satellite 

anomaly and failure data to the model-predicted risk. The NESC recognized several aspects of 

uncertainty in identifying spacecraft anomalies and documented recommendations to improve ongoing MMOD risk assessments. 

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

ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2 31 2017 NESC Technical Update

30 ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2

 2017 NESC Technical Update

CFD solution of Mars entry.
ESD Verification

and Validation Plan

The Exploration Systems Development (ESD) 

Program requested the NESC perform a review of the ESD V&V plan. The review objective was to help ensure that the cross-program 

integration approach over the Space Launch 

System (SLS), MPCV, and Ground Systems 

Development and Operations (GSDO) Programs would not result in gaps in ESD’s V&V. 

In response, an NESC team evaluated ESD’s 

V&V processes and documentation while another NESC team examined key interface requirements documents. Looking for gaps and 

areas of improvement, the first team examined 

ESD Program’s planning and approach, including V&V facility availability and utilization plan fidelity; V&V schedule; critical technical areas; the V&V planning response for SLS, MPCV, and GSDO; and V&V implementation between ESD and the SLS/MPCV/

GSDO organizations. The second team applied Model-Based Systems Engineering tools to model requirements flow-down and 

planning, looking for completeness and potential gaps or areas in need of improvement. 

This work was performed by GSFC, AFRC, GRC, JPL, JSC, KSC, LaRC, and MSFC. NASA/TM-2017-219625

Independent Verification

of Launch Abort Loads

Large forces are placed on spacecraft and launch vehicle 

structures during a launch abort, especially those aborts 

occurring during the early ascent phase. Quantifying those 

forces is key to a design that maintains the structural integrity and functionality of the launch abort system, and 

helps to ensure the successful escape of the Orion crew 

module from danger. The NESC conducted an independent verification of the predicted ascent abort loads that 

would be induced on critical components of the launch 

abort vehicle over a range of off-nominal launch vehicle 

trajectories. Using an abort loads toolset developed under 

an earlier NESC assessment, the NESC was able to independently verify the pre-abort conditions and predict the 

abort loads, which were then compared to the Orion crew 

module contractor’s predicted loads.

This work was performed by JSC and LaRC.

NASA/TM-2017-219622

Orion MPCV ascent

abort concept. (illustration)

Refinement of Acoustics Design Load 

Specifications for RS-25 Nozzle Flow Transient

When the SLS four main RS-25 Space Shuttle heritage engines 

start, the aft end of the SLS will experience high acoustic loads. 

Components in this location must be able to withstand the start-up 

engine nozzle flow transient acoustic load environment. During a 

multi-year assessment, the NESC conducted both subscale and fullscale testing of the acoustic environments to obtain the data needed 

to help refine the load environment at critical component locations. 

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

NASA/TM-2017-219656

ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2 33 2017 NESC Technical Update

32 ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Test firing of an RS-25 engine in the A1 Test Stand at SSC. Four RS-25 engines will power the core 

stage of the SLS launch vehicle.

(illustration)

Analysis of ATD Response for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System

Working with the Human Research Program at JSC, the NESC used anthropomorphic test devices (ATD), commonly referred 

to as crash test dummies, to help develop and validate finite element models (FEM) of both 5th-percentile female and 95thpercentile male ATDs for use in occupant protection analyses. A proposed design change to the Crew Impact Attenuation 

System (CIAS) in the Orion crew module (CM) prompted the analysis. Validated ATD FEMs were incorporated into FEMs of 

the CM seats, enabling modeling and simulation of human dynamic response in the current seat configuration and quantifying 

spacesuit-induced effects on ATD responses. 

This work was performed by JSC, GRC, and LaRC. NASA/TM-2017-219657

Validated FEMs allow multiple CIAS configurations to be quickly evaluated. 1. The Apollo command module crew seat attenuation system protected 

the crew against a single parachute failure, as will the Orion CM CIAS. 2. Validated ATD FEM model. 3. ATD FEM model integrated with crew seat 

FEM model. 4. ATD with helmet integrated with crew seat.

1 2 3 4
ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 3-5 35 2017 NESC Technical Update

PRIORITY 2: WORK IN PROGRESS

PRIORITY 2: COMPLETED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

• Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment 

III Interface Adapter Module Subsystem 

Anomaly Investigation Support

• Space Launch System Vibroacoustics Plans 

and Analysis Support

• Alternative Orion Small Cell Battery Design

• Independent Review of Additive 

Manufacturing Development Plans

• James Webb Space Telescope Shaker 

Anomaly

• Commercial Crew Program Review 

of Nondestructive Evaluation of Additive 

Manufacturing

• Commercial Crew Program Turbopump 

Cracking Concern Support

• JPL Battery Failure Study

• Independent Peer Review of Ground Systems 

Design and Operations / Space Launch 

System Umbilical Modeling

• Potential Common-Cause Controller

System Issues: Plumbrook Station

Mechanical Vibration Facilities and Goddard 

Space Flight Center James Webb Space 

Telescope Systems

• Parachute Modeling Capability Gap Support

• European Service Module Structural Test 

Article Dynamic Model Correlation

• Space Launch System Flight Software Source 

Code Review 

• Space Launch System Launch Vehicle Stage 

Adapter 2195 Cone Cracking Issue

• RS25 Thrust Oscillation in Coupled Loads 

Analysis and Fatigue Environments 

In-Progress Assessments

• Peer Review of the Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle Aerodynamic/Aerothermal Database 

Models and Methods

• Launch Abort System Risk Mitigation 

• Exploration Systems Independent Modeling 

and Simulation

• Space Launch System Aerosciences 

Independent Consultation and Review

• Independent Modeling and Simulation for 

Commercial Crew Program Entry, Descent, 

and Landing

• Evaluation/Validation of Range Safety 

BLAST Distance Focused Overpressure Model

• Human Factors Review of the Space 

Network Ground System Sustainment Project

• Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Avcoat Study

• Stress Ruptures Composite Overwrapped 

Pressure Vessel

• Composite Pressure Vessel Working Group

• Effects of Humidity on Dry Film Lubricant 

Storage and Performance

• Nonlinear Slosh Damping Analysis for 

Launch Vehicles

• Risk Reduction of Orion Government - 

Furnished Environmental Control and Life 

Support System

• Infrared Laser Sensor Technology Readiness 

and Maturation

• Application of System Identification to 

Parachute Modeling

• Orion Titanium Hydrazine Tank Weld - 

Sustain Load Cracking Issue

• Space Launch System Program Block I

Booster Element Alternate Internal 

Insulation Risk Reduction

• Electrical, Electronic, Electromechanical

Parts Testing for the Commercial Crew Program

• James Webb Space Telescope Space 

Environment Launch Constraints

• Static Software Analysis of the NASA 

Autonomous Flight Termination Software

• NESC Peer Review of Exploration Systems 

Development Integrated Vehicle Modal Test, 

Model Correlation, Development Flight 

Instrumentation and Flight Loads Readiness

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

Screening Testing

• Burst Factor Assessment for Pressure Vessels

• Commercial Crew Program Systems 

Engineering and Integration Processes

• NASA-Indian Research Organization 

Synthetic Aperture Radar Micrometeroid/ 

Orbital Debris Independent Assessment

• Independent Verification of Space Launch

System Block 1 Pre-Launch, Liftoff, and 

Ascent Gust Methodology and Loads

• Commercial Crew Program Load and Go 

Assessment

• Space Launch System Liftoff Environment 

Models

• Evaluation of Occupant Protection

Requirement Verification Approach by 

Commercial Crew Program Partners

• Viscous Effects on Launch Vehicle Ground 

Wind-Induced Oscillations

• Orion SIMULINK Guidance, Navigation, 

and Control Code Generation

• Commercial Crew Aerodynamics Peer Review

• Orion Simulator Risk Assessment

• Material Compatibility for Orion Propulsion 

Bellows

• Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel

Densified Liquid Oxygen Compatibility 

Assessment 

• Commercial Crew Program Capsule

Dynamics in the NASA LaRC 20-Foot

Vertical Spin Tunnel Assessment

• Full Independent Verification of Space 

Launch System Ascent Loads

• Human System Gap Analysis for Low Boom 

Supersonic X-Plane

• Space Launch System Pyro Firing Incident

• Assessment of Lead Hydrogen Pop During 

Space Launch System RS-25 Start

• Propellant Tank Safe-Life Analysis

• Agency Systemic Materials and Processes Issues

• Cross-Program Verification and Validation 

Integration and Mapping Assessment

In-Progress Support Activities

• Bond Verification Plan for Orion’s Molded 

Avcoat Block Heatshield Design

• Commercial Crew Program Incremental Risk

• Ascent Abort-2 Independent Review Team

• B-2 Space Launch System Green Run 

Handling Processes

• European Service Module Major Propulsion 

Design Upgrades

• Electrical Power for High-Voltage Direct 

Current Battery Close-Call Investigation at 

Armstrong Flight Research Center

• Orion Crew Module Well Deck Recovery 

Conditions Dynamics Analysis

• Support for Space Launch System Design 

Certification Review

• Materials Technical Discipline Team Support 

for Orion Crew Module Uprighting System

• Accelerance Decoupling for Modal Test

• Design of Experiments Support for 

Commercial Crew Program Arc Jet Testing

• Affordable Vehicle Avionics Global 

Positioning System Testing Support

• Support in Conducting Atlas V Battery 

Hazard Test

• Space Launch System Integrated Spacecraft 

and Payload Element Modal Test Assistance

• Orion Propellant Gauging

• ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal 

Radiometer Experiment on Space Station 

Vibe Failure Review Board Support

• Analysis and Test of Space Launch System 

Core and Booster Stage Flight Termination 

System Batteries

• NOVICE Support to Launch Services 

Provider and Commercial Crew Program 

Radiation Assessment

• Orion Crew Module/Service Module 

Separation Bolt Life issue

• Office of Safety and Mission Assurance 

Safety Critical Material Control Audit

• Report on the workshop “Dust in the 

Atmosphere of Mars and Its Impact on

Human Exploration”

• Commercial Crew Program Request for 

Pyroshock Support

• Nondestructive Support for Space Launch 

System Weld Anomalies

• Space Launch System Block 1B Guidance, 

Navigation, and Control Design Review

• Support for Evaluation of Space Launch 

System Program Polarity Testing Approach

• International Space Station Research 

Activities Outside the Microgravity Science 

Glovebox

• Commercial Crew Program Loads and 

Dynamics Test Support

• European Service Module Structural Test 

Article Dynamic Model Correlation

34 ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Priority 2

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Completed Support Activities

• Development of Softgoods Design Factors 

of Safety Support

In-Progress Assessments

• Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Proposal

• Rad750 Qualification Testing

• Implementation of JR-A Methodology 

into the NASGRO/FADD Codes to 

Improve Crack Instability Analysis 

• Micrometeroid/Orbital Debris Pressure 

Vessel Failure Criteria

• CubeSat Radiation Environments and 

ISS Radiation Dose Data

• Replacement Material Evaluation 

for Kalrez 1045 Spacecraft Propulsion 

Component Seals

• Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel 

Life Test

• Space Weather Architecture

• Safe, High Power Lithium-ion Battery 

Module Design

In-Progress Support Activities

• Additive Manufacturing Structural 

Integrity Initiative Project Oversight and 

Support

Completed Support Activities

• Peer Review on Wind Induced 

Oscillation

In-Progress Assessments

• Space Weather Action Plan Extreme 

Surface/Internal Charging Environment 

Benchmarks

In-Progress Support Activities

• Peregrine Sounding Rocket Redesign

• Additive Manufactured Fuel Turbopump

Disassembly/Inspection and Post-Test 

Data Evaluation

• Fluid Structure Interaction in Prediction 

of Parachute Performance

Completed Support Activities

• Review of Dynamic Power Convertor 

Proposals

In-Progress Assessments

• Empirical Launch Vehicle Explosion 

Model Evaluation

• Fast Coupled Loads Analysis via 

Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling 

• Improved Design and Optimization of 

Complex Trajectories

• Demonstration of Integrated Electronic 

Technical Manuals to Support Ground 

Systems Operations

• Radiation Single Event Effects 

Impact on Complex Avionics 

Architecture Reliability

In-Progress Support Activities

• Fracture Control Standard and 

Handbook (NASA-STD-5019A)

Priority 3:

Known Problems Not Being

Addressed by Any Project

Priority 5:

Work to Improve

a System

Priority 4:

Work to Avoid Potential

Future Problems
another accident in the future, but what we can’t have is 

another accident because we didn’t fully understand the risk. 

In this business we always have to accept some level of risk, 

but we need to do it with eyes wide open. The NESC mission 

is to properly characterize risk for NASA programs, senior 

management, and the astronauts,” she said. “I flew with 

people who didn’t completely understand the risk they were 

accepting when they launched into space.” 

When Dr. Currie-Gregg joined NASA in 1987, following the 

Challenger accident, everyone was focused on a safe RTF. But 

time and distance can dampen resolve and attention to risk. 

“In essence, you become a victim of your own success. After 

many years of operating the Space Shuttle without another 

accident, folks start to believe the risk is not as high as safety 

analysis indicates. I personally witnessed cognizance of the 

inherent risk of human spaceflight erode over time within the 

Space Shuttle community.” Then Columbia happened, and 

that risk was understood in unimaginable ways. 

In her role at the NESC, Dr. Currie-Gregg was focused 

on preventing another such tragedy. She worked on many 

assessments over the next decade, but two stand out for her 

– where she feels she made real and lasting contributions to 

the safety of human spaceflight. 

She led an assessment of the Orion crew module 

(CM) heatshield to determine the root cause of issues that 

occurred during manufacturing of the Exploration Flight Test 1 

heatshield. “Assisting the team in developing a comprehensive 

fault tree to guide our investigation, reviewing a multitude of 

manufacturing records, talking directly to personnel at the 

manufacturing plant, and conducting independent testing 

and analysis in order to finally discover the proximate causes 

of the issues was remarkable,” she said. “The process we 

followed was indicative of the NESC’s strength to draw on the 

capabilities of the Agency’s best and brightest, as well as any 

additional expertise we required from academia, industry, and 

other government agencies.”

She made great strides in spacecraft occupant protection 

as well, using Anthropomorphic Test Dummies (ATD) like those 

used in the automotive domain to develop safety standards 

for the Orion CM and NASA’s commercial providers’ vehicles. 

“We worked with experts from diverse areas such as NASCAR, 

the military services, the Federal Aviation Administration, and 

academia to create biodynamic models and simulations, test 

various ATDs, and develop spacecraft occupant protection 

standards and requirements to ensure the safety of future 

crews. I will walk away knowing that if I can help prevent an 

injury to a crew member, then I will have made a significant 

contribution to the future of spaceflight.” 

Upon her departure to teach at Texas A&M, she hoped 

the NESC would continue its mission. “I want the NESC to 

keep doing exactly what they have been doing: to keep 

continually questioning, to keep being the organization that 

is never satisfied with an answer that doesn’t have the proper 

data, analysis, or technical rigor to back it up. It’s been 14 

years since the Columbia accident. By nature, the heightened 

sense of awareness of the risk associated with spaceflight 

erodes over time. The NESC must continue to be the voice 

in the room, challenging engineers and program personnel, 

asking ‘Is this safe? Do you have the data to back up that 

statement?’ While there is certainly risk associated with our 

science missions – primarily cost and schedule risks – the 

risk of human spaceflight is ultimately borne by someone’s 

mom, dad, sibling, or child.” 

Dr. Currie-Gregg said she hoped to continue to have 

some affiliation with the NESC after she left. “It’s a stellar 

organization,” she said. “When people ask what I do for a 

living, I say I’m an engineer with the NESC – and in a former 

life was an astronaut too.” 

In late 2017 Dr. Nancy Currie-Gregg retired from her 

position as an NESC Principal Engineer to embark on a new 

career in academia. After 30 years with the Agency, she 

joined the staff at Texas A&M University, where she’s currently 

teaching the next generation of engineers, some of whom 

could one day end up at NASA. She has a lot to teach them. 

A retired Army Colonel and aviator, Dr. Currie-Gregg 

joined NASA in 1987. She was selected as an astronaut and 

flew four Shuttle missions, including the first International 

Space Station assembly mission in 1998. A full career already 

behind her, she contemplated leaving NASA after her last 

flight in 2002, but shortly thereafter NASA lost the Space 

Shuttle Columbia and Dr. Currie-Gregg’s plans changed.

“Following Columbia I felt compelled to remain at NASA 

to assist the Agency in determining what caused the accident 

and to contribute to the Space Shuttle Program return to flight 

(RTF) efforts in order to complete the construction of the 

International Space Station,” she said. “It was important to the 

Agency and to me personally to see the Space Station fully 

assembled, as successfully and as safely as possible.” 

Dr. Currie-Gregg knew it could be a year or more before another shuttle mission was launched, so she looked for 

ways to help the Agency from an engineering perspective to 

return the Shuttle to flight. At that time there was a significant 

number of astronauts who had not flown a single flight, so 

she embarked on a mission to develop a cadre of people who 

could explain, in engineering terms, what it was like to work in 

a zero-g environment. “You can train. You can study. But until 

you’ve experienced spaceflight, you don’t completely understand what living and working in a microgravity environment 

is like.” 

She was eventually selected to lead the Space Shuttle 

Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office. “It was the 

toughest job I’ve had during my tenure at NASA – much 

tougher than astronaut training and spaceflight. I was responsible for telling the astronauts, their families, and NASA that 

shuttle was safe enough to fly.” It wasn’t lost on her that she 

was putting lives on the line if she was wrong. 

While Dr. Currie-Gregg worked shuttle safety issues for 

RTF, the concept of the NESC was being established. It grew 

out of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), 

which saw the need for an independent organization that could 

provide Agency programs with an independent perspective 

on difficult technical problems. She remembers when its new 

Director, Mr. Ralph Roe, Jr., now the NASA Chief Engineer, 

came to JSC. “He told us what the NESC was, its mission and 

its goals. When I heard about that, I said, ‘when I grow up, I 

want to be in the NESC.’” 

At that time she felt she wasn’t qualified to join, at least 

not yet. “I had time in the Agency but hadn’t served much time 

in engineering. Being a spacecraft operator doesn’t make 

you an excellent engineer. I felt like I needed to work my way 

up to that.” By 2007, after serving in her latest post as the 

Deputy Director of JSC’s Engineering Directorate, she joined 

the NESC and would go on to serve 10 years, first as the 

NESC JSC Chief Engineer and then as a Principal Engineer, 

the well-established technical and managerial talent who lead 

the NESC’s largest technical assessments. 

As Dr. Currie-Gregg neared her retirement date, she 

spoke passionately about the NESC and its mission, which 

she said has never wavered. “In my mind it has fulfilled exactly 

the mission it was given by the CAIB and continues to do that 

every single day, for the Commercial Crew Program, Orion, 

and our science missions. Whether you are an astronaut, or 

an engineer in the trenches, or a safety person, you can turn 

to the NESC and get an exceptional assessment done by the 

best and brightest engineers and scientists in the Agency and 

nation,” she said.

“It’s a critical role. We will never know how many times 

the NESC has influenced a decision that may have prevented 

an accident. A friend of mine once said that we may have 

DISCIPLINE FOCUS: Human Spaceflight Operations 37 2017 NESC Technical Update

Photos (left to right):

Currie-Gregg attired in 

a training version of the 

shuttle launch and entry 

garment at the Neutral 

Buoyancy Laboratory 

near JSC.

Prototype of a molded 

Avcoat block heatshield 

for the Orion Crew 

Module.

Currie-Gregg, STS109 

Mission Specialist, 

works the controls for 

Columbia’s robotic arm 

to maneuver crewmates 

during a Hubble Space 

Telescope servicing 

mission.

 IN THIS BUSINESS WE ALWAYS HAVE TO 

ACCEPT SOME LEVEL OF RISK, BUT WE NEED 

TO DO IT WITH EYES WIDE OPEN.” 

Discipline

Focus

Discipline Perspectives 

Related to Assessments

Perspectives on

the NESC

from Former Astronaut,

Nancy Currie-Gregg
When Dr. Curtis Larsen joined the NESC as the NASA 

Technical Fellow for Loads and Dynamics (L&D) in late 2005, 

he was attracted to the overall “problem solving nature” of 

the organization. “That’s a natural for an engineer,” he said, 

having spent several years in industry working as a forensics 

engineer, analyzing engineering failures to figure out what 

caused them. The NESC was offering a similar line of work, 

with the added challenge that space brings to the equation. “It 

was a chance to dig into the whole NASA-wide variety of issues 

and be a part of the team that goes after the solution and finds 

it. That held the promise of not being mundane and boring.”

For Dr. Larsen, that promise was kept. He spent more 

than half of his NASA engineering career with the NESC, 

working with his L&D Technical Discipline Team (TDT) on 

a variety of assessments involving Constellation, Ares-1X, 

Space Shuttle, International Space Station, the Mars Science 

Laboratory, Orion, and more – solving acoustic, vibration, 

oscillation, and all manner of loads and dynamics issues, and 

in all aspects of flight, from the launch pad to landing.

Most recently Dr. Larsen and the TDT participated in an 

ongoing peer review of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space 

Launch System, and the Ground Systems Development and 

Operations Programs. “We contributed a lot to the loads and 

dynamics and structures success of those programs,” he 

said, including approaches to integrated modal tests, roll out 

tests during the move to the launch pad, and the water landing 

and retrieval of the Orion crew module. 

This variety of work and the opportunity to work with the 

nationally and internationally recognized experts who make 

up the TDT is what Dr. Larsen said he would miss most as 

he left the Agency and the NESC in late 2017. Dr. Larsen was 

embarking on a new teaching career with the aim of imparting 

a little hard-won wisdom and knowledge to those just starting 

out on a career journey he began more than 35 years ago.

Bridging that generational gap is vital to the next generation of engineers, he said. Dr. Larsen joined NASA when it was 

in the midst of a hiring boom for the Space Shuttle Program. 

“Most of us were early in our careers with only 5 to 10 years 

of experience. The rest were graybeards with very few in the 

mid-career range. I see the same thing today. We’re tooling 

up for new programs and have hired new people, but there’s 

still a gap in the middle. The graybeards are retiring and my 

generation did not do enough to capture that knowledge 

from them.”

For NASA, whose projects are large, complex, and not 

mass produced, the generational gap can be particularly 

challenging, especially as the next vehicle to carry astronauts 

to space, Orion, takes shape. “As an Agency, we haven’t done 

this kind of spacecraft hardware design and development 

since Shuttle was developed in the 1970s. That was a couple 

of engineering generations ago.” 

It’s a demographic problem his own discipline has 

grappled with and why Dr. Larsen helped organize the NASA 

Structures, Loads and Dynamics, and Mechanical Systems 

(SLaMS) young professional workshops that he hoped would 

turn that tide. The forum provides younger engineers the 

opportunity to present their work to peers and seasoned 

technical experts across NASA. The annual forum reached 

its 6th anniversary in 2017. “They do a great job of connecting 

the older generation to the younger engineers and help guide 

that enthusiasm they have.” 

But while the discipline’s demographic makeup hasn’t 

changed, technology has skyrocketed. Computers and software have gotten better and faster, but the discipline and 

NASA at large have developed a greater dependency on 

them. “We rely too much on analysis and not tests. You 

have to have tests to anchor the analysis. The software can 

produce really pretty color pictures that look like the vehicle 

we’re designing, but looking good doesn’t equate to accuracy. 

That’s the biggest challenge for the discipline, to re-instill that 

balance between test and analysis.” 

As the fall of 2017 approached, Dr. Larsen began his 

new adventure in academics. But before he left, he offered 

this nugget of wisdom to the early career engineers he left 

behind to carry on the L&D discipline. “Learn your analysis 

and learn the classics so you have another method to test 

your analyses. And get out to the hardware as much as you 

can to see it, touch it, and know what’s going on with it. And 

get as much testing experience as you can. Then you’ll be the 

super engineer that NASA needs.” 

Interview with Dr. Curtis Larsen, former NASA 

Technical Fellow for Loads and Dynamics, 

conducted a few weeks prior to his retirement 

from NASA in August 2017.

Dr. Christopher Iannello

NASA Technical Fellow

for Electrical Power

DISCIPLINE FOCUS: Electrical Power 39 2017 NESC Technical Update

38 DISCIPLINE FOCUS: Loads and Dynamics

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Extravehicular Mobility 

Unit Portable Life Support 

System (PLSS) Li-Ion 

battery redesign/testing

(right) TR induced in a single 

cell propagates across all cells 

in a PLSS derived battery pack, 

resulting in pack failure.

(left) Testing of a flight-like 

prototype PLSS battery pack 

that incorporates the rules of 

design. TR induced in a single cell did not propagate to adjacent cells. 

While gases escaped through the 12 filtered vents as designed, all 

sparks, flames and effluents were contained by filters within the pack. 

The battery continued to provide power.

Lithium-ion Battery 

Risk Mitigation Efforts 

Continue

When Boeing’s Dreamliner 787 aircraft suffered a lithiumion (Li-Ion) battery thermal runaway (TR), it sparked an effort 

at NASA to reevaluate the Li-Ion batteries the Agency uses in 

spaceflight and onboard assets like the International Space 

Station (ISS). Though NASA had not experienced any issues, 

the Agency updated its battery safety standard with new 

requirements for flight battery designs and identified the need 

for low-cost options for reducing TR severity. 

To help Agency programs and projects meet these new 

requirements and to examine the Li-Ion battery designs in 

development for ISS, Dr. Christopher Iannello, NASA Technical 

Fellow for Electrical Power, assembled battery experts from 

across NASA and industry for an NESC assessment. 

After extensive thermal analysis and testing by the 

Passive Thermal Team, led by the NASA Technical Fellow for 

Passive Thermal, the assessment team developed several 

ways to modify the design to mitigate TR risk in small cell Li-Ion 

batteries, like those used by astronauts during extravehicular 

activities (EVA). Those changes are now being incorporated 

at NASA and are generating interest from the industry at large.

Rules of Design

Bringing knowledge gained from the NESC-sponsored 

development pathfinder, Dr. Eric Darcy from the Electrical 

Power Technical Discipline Team and the NESC Team 

established five “design rules” that when employed can keep 

cell failures from propagating.

“Once a cell inside a Li-Ion battery pack fails, the key 

is to keep that failure from propagating to its neighbors and 

causing a TR,” said Dr. Iannello. These rules address key mitigation strategies, from allowing adequate cell spacing to managing heat distribution with interstitial materials. For example, 

“If an individual cell heats up, you need to distribute that heat 

so all cells get a portion rather than all of the heat affecting the 

adjacent cell.”

Another design solution is electrically isolating failed cells 

with fuses when cells are connected in parallel to increase 

battery capacity. “The design also needs a path that directs 

the hot gases and vent materials away along a tortuous path 

which bleeds heat and suppresses flames before they leave 

the enclosure - while still protecting cell components.” 

The team also found that new, higher-density cells are 

adopting slimmer designs, leaving opportunities for ejecta to 

be released from the cell’s sidewall, directly impinging on its 

neighbor. A rule addressing sidewall ruptures was added, and 

the team is working to find solutions to strengthen sidewalls 

without reducing energy output. 

New Designs at Work

The new rules were applied to designs for three EVA batteries and successfully proven to be nonpropagating. “More 

effort is needed to address sidewall rupture, testing methods 

for large cell battery designs, and applicability to higher power 

batteries,” said Dr. Iannello.

Dr. Iannello also said efforts have begun in earnest to 

share what they’ve learned with the broader NASA community 

and industry through conferences, workshops, forums, and 

meeting with car and battery cell manufacturers. “Our information has been well-received,” he said. “People are asking 

for our data to help them better understand sensitivities and 

determine which mitigation techniques might help them.” 

The assessment’s final report is one that will be pulled off 

the shelves and used for years to come,” said NESC Director 

Tim Wilson. “This assessment demonstrated not only the 

NESC’s capabilities, but our ability to do foundational work 

that affects multiple programs and projects, and industry as 

well.” For more on Li-Ion batteries, see pages 8 and 51.

RULES OF DESIGN

Reduce the risk of a cell can sidewall rupture

Provide adequate cell spacing and heat rejection

Individually fuse parallel cells

Protect adjacent cells from the hot TR cell ejecta (solids, liquids, gases)

Prevent flames and sparks from exiting the battery enclosure

Be the Super Engineer

that NASA Needs

Parting Words from

Dr. Curtis Larsen
Just before his retirement in 2017, Dr. Robert Piascik, former 

NASA Technical Fellow for Materials, presented a white paper to 

the NESC Review Board illustrating the need for a collaborative 

effort by the Structures, Materials, and Nondestructive Evaluation 

(NDE) disciplines to retool the Agency’s durability and damage 

tolerance (D&DT) engineering predictive practices. It was followed 

by a short presentation by the new NASA Technical Fellow for 

Materials, Mr. Richard Russell, who outlined his plans for making 

it happen. This article captures the highlights of that presentation.

 

Four decades after its launch, NASA’s Voyager 1 reached 

interstellar space, farther than any other human-made object 

has ever traveled. It was a happy surprise for the mission 

that was supposed to last 5 years. Today, NASA is designing 

increasingly complex spacecraft that are incorporating new, 

advanced materials and raising the bar on performance. It is 

a necessity for future travel into deep space — where a 50- to 

100-year life expectancy for human and science exploration 

assets will be the expected norm, where spare parts may 

have to be sacrificed to save weight, and where Earth will be 

too far away for a repair mission. 

“Every asset we send to deep space is going to have 

extreme value,” said Dr. Piascik, former NASA Technical 

Fellow for Materials. “We can’t just replace things. It’s too 

costly. We’re not going to have truckloads of traveling spare 

parts to help repair equipment.” 

That’s why predicting the D&DT of spacecraft and 

components, especially those that are fracture critical◊, is 

crucial to long-term mission survival. “We’re either going to 

have extreme reliability in our components so we won’t have 

failures or have separate space platforms for safe haven and 

repairs,” said Dr. Piascik. “The next step, going from low earth 

orbit to deep space, is not going to be trivial and durability is 

going to be right in the bull’s eye.”

After years of working NESC assessments, Dr. Piascik 

noticed that the Agency’s traditional D&DT analysis methods 

and tools were being pushed well beyond their technical limits 

in an effort to keep up with the pace of technology. “We are 

starting to develop and actually fly new designs and new 

materials, but the design methods are outstripping our ability 

to predict the durability and damage performance of those 

components,” he said. 

“The wave of the future, and rightfully so, is additive manufacturing (AM),” Dr. Piascik noted as an example. “It’s a really 

unique, powerful way to cheaply and accurately manufacture 

very complex-configured components, but we don’t have the 

capability to really predict the D&DT behavior. The problem 

has only intensified as actual testing of components has 

become cost- and time-prohibitive, and more reliance has 

shifted to computational D&DT tools. 

Durability and Damage Tolerance:

A Prerequisite for Deep Space Travel

Dr. Piascik, along with D&DT structures expert and colleague, Dr. Norman Knight, wrote a technical paper (NASATM-2017-219621) outlining these concerns. Referencing actual NESC assessments, they cited examples that illustrate 

the challenges in predicting the D&DT behavior of complex 

components such as products of AM, multi-functional materials that have multiple grain sizes or interfaces, ceramic composite materials, metallic foams, and more. “We’re far from 

understanding the D&DT of those materials, yet we’re pushing 

forward on their development,” Dr. Piascik said. 

NASA needs to better position itself for the future by 

retooling its D&DT engineering predictive practices, he said. 

Aside from the fundamental need to understand the limits 

of current engineering methods, Dr. Piascik said the Agency 

needs to develop new, advanced engineering analysis and 

testing tools to tackle these emerging complex material systems 

and manufacturing technologies and the validation testing 

required to provide a technical understanding that traditional 

analysis methods alone cannot. 

The fix is not an easy one. Dr. Piascik and Dr. Knight offered a long list of recommendations that included providing 

funding for research; cataloging the current state-of-the-art of 

computational materials engineering; establishing a multidisciplinary team of NASA Technical Fellows’ technical discipline 

teams (TDT) for Materials, Structures, and NDE; development 

of computational materials-based testing procedures and engineering analysis methodologies; and many more.

Though Dr. Piascik and Dr. Knight have since retired, their 

technical paper will serve as a road map for the successor, 

Mr. Richard Russell, the NESC’s new NASA Technical Fellow 

for Materials, who has already made headway on an action 

plan. That plan includes establishing TDT working groups, 

educating the fracture control community via meetings and 

guidelines development, and development of new tools. 

“I’ve been talking to the TDT groups about working 

together to collaborate on all the topics that Dr. Piascik talked 

about,” said Mr. Russell. “We really need to identify which 

standards, specifications, and program requirements need 

modification to ensure our fracture critical components are 

properly assessed during the design review process,” he said. 

“We need to truly understand the limits of our current 

D&DT methods,” concluded Dr. Piascik. “It sounds almost 

trivial, but we (the Agency) have a problem if we’re using our 

current methods in areas we shouldn’t be.” 

Richard Russell

NASA Technical Fellow

for Materials

◊ A fracture critical classification identifies a part, either metallic or 

composite, whose individual failure is a catastrophic hazard, and which 

requires damage tolerant analysis or other fracture control assessment 

to be shown acceptable for flight.

Photo: Dr. Piascik (left) and Mr. Russell shown reviewing a D&DT 

test method being conducted using a servo hydraulic test machine at 

a NASA Langley Research Center D&DT laboratory.

WHAT IS A

D&DT TECHNOLOGY

SHORTFALL?

Recognition that some D&DT tools are 

inappropriate for some advanced designs/materials

Sufficient testing of new materials and their use to 

validate analysis methods/models

Understanding of fundamental assumptions, 

boundary conditions, and response metrics produced 

by the computational tools

Recognition of boundaries between conventional 

continuum mechanics and non-continuum responses

Capability to understand and evaluate local material 

behavior caused by increased reliance of global 

computational simulation results

Understanding fracture mechanics similitude 

concepts and applicability of linear elastic fracture 

mechanics

Recognition of importance of local environments on 

D&DT assessment

Understanding the role of material length scales 

and increased dependencies on anisotropy and 

nonlinearities

Understanding and cross-communication of existing 

standard practice guidelines between disciplines

Includes the lack of:

40 DISCIPLINE FOCUS: Materials

 2017 NESC Technical Update

To truly understand

damage modes,

one must understand

material/environment

interactions over time 

interval of interest.

Environment Material

Degradation

Time • Life • Mission

Damage

Modes

 THE NEXT STEP, GOING 

FROM LOW EARTH ORBIT 

TO DEEP SPACE, IS NOT 

GOING TO BE TRIVIAL AND 

DURABILITY IS GOING TO BE 

RIGHT IN THE BULL’S EYE.”
The NESC Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) 

Project was established in March 2007 to develop and 

experimentally validate new analysis-based shell buckling 

design factors, i.e., knockdown factors (KDF), for metallic 

and composite launch vehicle structures. The main goal is 

to determine if conservatisms applied to Apollo-era KDFs, 

which account for the unknown variability in cylinder buckling 

loads, are still warranted with today’s advanced technology. 

The new KDFs will enable weight savings and should help 

mitigate launch vehicle development and performance risks.

2017 has been a period of transition for the SBKF Project. 

The development and validation of new KDFs for stiffened 

metallic cylinders is nearly complete. New KDFs developed 

from the SBKF Project were used in the design of the Space 

Launch System (SLS) core stage (CS), resulting in a 5-8% 

mass savings. Meanwhile, the second phase of the project is 

making significant progress toward developing new KDFs for 

composite sandwich cylinders. 

New Metallic Cylinder KDFs Nearly Complete

The metallic portion of the SBKF Project is engaged in 

several close-out activities. The team has completed detailed 

reviews of analysis and test data from all 10 of its large-scale 

stiffened metallic cylinder buckling tests and is now in the 

process of publishing final analysis and test reports. These 

reports describe the complex response characteristics of 

the cylinders investigated, the development of high-fidelity 

buckling simulations, and provide analysis and testing 

best practices. Two such reports were published in 2017,1,2

including a report on the buckling analysis of the SLS CS 

liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank and liquid oxygen (LOX) tank. 

This report summarizes data needed to satisfy a critical 

requirement that the design buckling loads based on the 

new KDFs be conservative, i.e., show positive margin, when 

compared to the high-fidelity finite-element-based buckling 

loads for the SLS CS cylinder designs that include the effects 

of as-measured SLS CS cylinder geometry — also known as 

geometric imperfections. The high-fidelity results indicate that 

the SLS CS cryotank cylinders have positive margins over the 

design buckling loads generated with the new SBKF-derived 

KDFs. Several more reports are expected to be complete in 

the spring of 2018, including the revision of NASA Special 

Publication (SP)-8007, Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular 

Cylinders, published in 1968.

3

Development of KDFs for Composite

Cylinders Continues

The second phase of the SBKF Project is focusing on 

the development of KDFs for composite cylinders for SLS with 

plans to test five 8-foot-diameter honeycomb-core sandwich 

composite cylinders. These cylinders will all have different 

shell-wall designs (core thickness and material, number and 

angles of facesheet plies) to interrogate different portions of the 

SLS design space. The first shell was fabricated by Northrop 

Grumman and tested successfully last year (2016) in the 

SBKF 8-foot test facility at MSFC. The project is building the 

remaining 8-foot-diameter cylinders at the MSFC Composites 

Technology Center. Toward this objective, the SBKF Project 

procured an 8-foot-diameter metallic tool on which to build the 

shells. In addition to these large-scale cylinders, other smallscale cylinders are being fabricated and tested as part of 

collaborative work with Delft University of Technology in 

the Netherlands. These small-scale cylinders will be used 

to study the effects of scaling on the buckling response of 

sandwich composite cylinders. Finally, the project is in the 

process of developing a preliminary set of new KDFs for 

the cylindrical portion of the SLS Universal Stage Adaptor 

(USA) in collaboration with the USA Project and Dynetics, 

the prime contractor on task for the USA development. 

The SBKF Team also published NESC Technical 

Bulletin 16-01, Buckling Knockdown Factors for Composite 

Cylinders, which emphasizes that composite cylinders are 

outside the scope of SP-8007 and why caution must be 

taken when using the universal metallic KDF in composite 

designs. Ultimately, the composite KDFs will be published 

either in the revised SP-8007 or in a similar document.

Technology Demonstration – Single-Piece

Metallic Cylinder Fabrication and Testing

In addition to its main focus areas, the SBKF Project 

periodically identifies and explores synergistic technology 

demonstration opportunities. One such opportunity was 

found in the manufacturing and testing of an 8-foot-diameter 

single-piece stiffened metallic cylinder. The goal of this 

activity was two-fold: first, to demonstrate the use of flowforming technique in the fabrication of a large-scale single 

piece aluminum cylinder; and second, to demonstrate the 

improved buckling performance of a cylinder without weld 

lands. To accomplish this goal, the SBKF Project partnered 

with the Advanced Materials and Processing Branch at 

LaRC, MSFC, and ATI Forged Products to design and 

fabricate an aluminum 8-foot-diameter orthogrid-stiffened 

single-piece metallic cylinder, i.e., with no weld lands. The 

cylinder acreage design is essentially the same as one of the 

previously tested welded metallic cylinders, so that a direct 

comparison between welded and single-piece cylinders 

could be made. Testing was conducted in the SBKF buckling 

test facility at MSFC in April 2017. The test results indicated 

a 28% increase in load carrying capability by removing the 

weld lands from the cylinder.

References:

1. Hilburger, M.W.; Satyanarayana, A.; Schultz, M.R.; and Oremont, L: 

Buckling Analysis of the Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Ringless 

Cryotanks – Updated Buckling Load Predictions Based on As-Built SLS 

Cryotank Barrel Geometry, NASA/TM-2017-219373, February 2017 (ITAR)

2. Hilburger, M.W.; Waters, W.A.; and Haynie, W.T.: Buckling Test Results 

and Preliminary Test and Analysis Correlation from the 8-Foot-Diameter 

Orthogrid-Stiffened Cylinder Test Article TA02, NASA/TM-2017-219587, 

March 2017.

3. Anonymous: Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders. NASA Space 

Vehicle Design Criteria, NASA SP-8007, 1965 (revised 1968).

Status Update:

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Project

DISCIPLINE FOCUS: Structures 43 2017 NESC Technical Update

Photos (clockwise from top left):

An automated fiber placement robot in the MSFC Composites Technology 

Center builds an 8-foot-diameter composite cylinder under control of 

materials engineer, Ms. Casey Wolfe.

An 8-foot composite cylinder being prepared for testing. 

Fabrication of an 8-foot-diameter single-piece stiffened metallic cylinder 

(without weld lands). This test article showed increased buckling 

performance over welded cylinders.

Section of a Space Shuttle 27-foot-diameter external tank was used in 

development of metallic cylinder KDFs.
Frangible joints (FJ) are pyrotechnic devices used as 

spacecraft separation systems between rocket stages or 

as part of payload fairings. The NESC examined design 

sensitivities, margins, and estimated reliability for several 

FJ types. High-speed structural measurements were necessary to transition from a binary form of testing, i.e., postdetonation observation of FJ separation (pass/fail) to a 

continuous measurement of performance that enables margin 

quantification and reliability estimation. To that end, the 

NESC team achieved measurements using Photon Doppler 

Velocimetry (PDV) and high-speed video (HSV) cameras to 

perform three-dimensional digital image correlation (DIC) to 

better characterize FJ operation.

Digital Image Correlation Measurement Validation

The NESC team was faced with the challenge of making 

accurate structural response measurements for an event 

lasting just microseconds. DIC was the leading candidate to 

provide surface strains, three-axis displacements, and threeaxis velocities. DIC was understood for quasi-static and highspeed applications, but needed to be validated for ultra-highspeed conditions. The validation was performed using three 

techniques with disparate physics: foil strain gages, fiber optic 

(FO) strain sensors, and PDV. The surface mounted sensor 

comparisons (foil and FO strain gages) were limited due to the 

sensors departing the surface shortly after local detonation. 

High Speed Structural Measurement 

Technique Development and Validation

Pretest PDV 

Probe Alignment

Alignment Laser Spots Shown

on FJ Test Specimen

Interlaced High Speed Video (HSV) 

Cameras for 3D-DIC Data Collection

However, the comparison with PDV was against the entire 

duration of each DIC video record, and across all 143 tests in 

the 2.5-year test program.

The final result was the demonstration of a validated 

DIC measurement system providing the aforementioned nine 

parameters across an approximately 3-inch x 6-inch area 

at 1 million frames per second (see referenced area at left). 

Data from DIC enabled the team to discover, quantify, and 

explain boundary effects, locations of minimum margin, and 

generate qualification and acceptance testing requirements.

Photon Doppler Velocimetry Measurement Validation

The best data to characterize the impulsive loading was 

high-speed velocity data at points on the surface of the FJ, 

and the best data to characterize the fracture events was 

high-speed velocity data at a different set of points on the 

surface of the FJ. PDV data collected at 10 mega samples 

per second met the requirements, and was validated three 

different ways. The first method involved measuring a point 

on a flywheel at a well-known rotation rate. The second 

method was stated above, comparing against DIC data. The 

third method utilized sub-pixel resolution velocity data derived 

from collocated HSV. All three methods compared well.

The final result was the demonstration of a validated 

PDV system providing ultra-high-speed velocity data. This 

enabled the team to accurately measure the impulsive 

loading and structural response, resulting in a continuous 

variable description of FJ performance, successfully determining margin, and estimating reliability. 

For more information, contact:

Christopher Kostyk

Armstrong Flight Research Center

chris.b.kostyk@nasa.gov

Innovative

Techniques

Solutions Developed

from NESC Assessments

Left Pair

(LP)

Right Pair

(RP)

LP

(L)

RP

(L)

LP

(R)

RP

(R)

OVERHEAD VIEW

FJ Specimen and 3D-DIC

Video Cameras

INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES 45 2017 NESC Technical Update
Figure 2: Morphing from “base” FEM

to alter ligament geometry.

Increased

Radius

Decreased Thickness

Increased Offset

A deterministic system Design of Experiments (dsDOE) 

method was developed for frangible joints (FJ) to enable rapid 

estimation of their design reliability. Design reliability means 

there is an acceptable degree of certainty that the FJ will 

fracture/actuate when commanded. FJs are typically used in 

critical applications to separate stages of a launch vehicle or 

payload shrouds. As part of an NESC-sponsored investigation 

into FJ reliability, this new method combined a finite element 

model (FEM) morphing technique with statistical modeling 

and analysis to develop surrogate models of FJs. These 

surrogate models were then employed to analyze millions of 

Monte Carlo-generated configurations and predict design reliability. An overview of the approach is illustrated in Figure 1.

Morphing of FJ FEM models was employed to rapidly 

generate hundreds of FEM configurations for subsequent 

LS-DYNA (a commercially available non-linear FEM code) 

analysis. The variations in FJ design parameters were generated via DOE methods, and FEM pre-processing capabilities 

were used to alter a “base” FEM to the desired configurations 

while minimizing mesh distortion and maintaining element 

quality. The method also retains all nodes, elements, and 

boundary conditions in the original “base” model and does 

not require remeshing, thus increasing analysis throughput. 

Automating the process enabled hundreds of varied FEM 

configurations to be generated in about an hour. Figure 2

shows an example of morphing on a FJ ligament.

After generating LS-DYNA response data on the morphed 

models, statistical models were fit to the resulting metrics 

to develop polynomial equations that predict the LS-DYNA 

response over multivariate space, aka surrogate models. 

These surrogate models were then coupled with statistical 

distributions of the input variables to run a 10-million case 

Monte-Carlo analysis and determine the overall distribution 

of the model’s primary output response metric, designated 

as AvgVelW (Figure 3), which represents an average velocity 

response. The fracture/no fracture result of the LS-DYNA 

analysis was further used to develop logistic fits to this 

binary response for fractures occurring within 30 μs, 40 μs, 

and within an unlimited amount of time from commanding. 

This logistic fit provided a probability of fracture for varying 

surrogate model output responses. The design reliability was 

then calculated by dividing total number of expected fractures 

by 10 million. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting logistic and 

output distributions used to calculate design reliability. 

46 INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Deterministic System Design of Experiments 

for Frangible Joint Design Reliability

Figure 3: Surrogate model output metric probability

distribution function and probability of fracture curves.

20 40 60 80

0.2 0.4 0.6

0.0

0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

AvgVeIW (average velocity response)

Fracture40

Fracture

Metric PDF

Fracture Probability

Density

Fracture30

Frangible Joint Cross Section FEA MODEL STATISTICS METRICS DESIGN INPUT

Design 

Variables 

Distribution 

Definition

Predicted

Design 

Reliability

Output

Metric

Surrogate

Model

Monte

Carlo

Analysis

Variable 

Screening 

Analysis

LS-DYNA

dsDOE Models

(sensitivity runs)

DOE Matrix 

for Variable 

Screening

Design 

Variables

List

Output

Metric

Definitions

Matlab Script

Processes

Time History

Data

LS-DYNA

dsDOE Models 

(space filling runs)

DOE Matrix

for Space

Filling

Figure 1: Deterministic system Design of Experiments (dsDOE) process.

Lower

Stage

Ring

Upper 

Stage

Ring

Ligaments

Frangible Joint Cross Section

(approximate)

Used to jettison service module (SM) panels.

Morphing

Handles on 

Ligament

Expanding

Tube

Separation 

Plane

SM Panels

Frangible Joints

INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES 47 2017 NESC Technical Update
A graphical proximity analysis tool has been developed 

to aid in the study of spacecraft separation events. The 

NESC has been tasked with the requirement to analyze 

the separation events of numerous spacecraft operational 

scenarios, including the launch sequence of the Space 

Launch System (SLS), the separation of the launch abort 

system for the Commercial Crew Program, and the jettison 

of debris from the International Space Station (ISS). In each 

case, the complex relative motions between all spacecraft 

components are analyzed. The spacecraft and component 

trajectories are first simulated in the Program to Optimize 

Simulated Trajectories II (POST2). POST2 provides a generalized framework for simulating six degree-of-freedom 

masses for powered or unpowered vehicles near arbitrary 

rotating oblate planets. Obtaining and understanding the 

proximities between vehicle parts down to the closest point 

of approach for clearance analysis requirements, however, 

requires accurate geometric representations of the vehicles 

driven by the point mass dynamics. To that end, the Exploration 

Visualization Environment (EVE) tool, has been introduced. 

EVE has been used extensively to support space mission 

analysis requirements for programs and projects such as 

ISS assembly and operations, ISS payload operations, Mars 

Exploration Rovers, Ares 1X, Lunar Habitats and Landers, the 

Asteroid Redirect Missions, and human exploration of Mars. 

EVE is a simulation, visualization, and analysis system 

designed to integrate time-dependent engineering data 

with detailed graphical models within a full-scale virtual 

environment. A useful EVE capability is that of proximity 

analysis. By taking the detailed engineering data provided by 

POST2 and integrating it with very detailed geometric models, 

EVE can analyze the system to determine the closest point 

of approach between objects. An extension was created for 

POST2 to enable a more formalized transfer of data between 

POST2 and EVE. Using EVE’s interactive virtual environment, 

the user obtains almost immediate feedback for a given POST2 

analysis run by viewing the simulation in real time, visualizing 

proximity results in context of the mission scenario and events. 

The user also has the option to analyze thousands of POST2 

simulation runs, such as those performed through Monte Carlo 

analysis, using an offline batch analysis mode. The results 

of the analyses are stored in report files, providing proximity 

distance data as a function of time for all analysis runs. Specific 

runs can be brought back into EVE and visualized as required. 

Using the built in media capture system, the user may export 

images and animations showing points of closest approach. 

The flexibility of EVE and POST2 are continually improved 

through regular maintenance and updates. In addition, EVE 

is adaptable to any trajectory program. EVE is available to all 

NASA programs and projects.

More information on EVE and POST2 can be found

at eve.larc.nasa.gov and post2.larc.nasa.gov.

A new capability for modeling propellant explosion events 

has been developed. Testing and launching of chemical rocket propulsion systems inherently involve the risk of large energy explosions. The ability to predict these blast environments 

is critical to the safety of the facility, test article, and possibly 

flight crew members. NASA’s current standard is to utilize 

conservative analytical engineering methods to estimate the 

explosion energy and subsequent blast propagation for maximum credible events. These methods typically first assume 

a detonation event occurs and then equates the propellant 

vapor cloud explosion to a high-density explosive. While this 

methodology is adequate for providing blast overpressures at 

sufficient distances from the detonation source, it lacks the fidelity to predict the near-field explosion dynamics. In addition, 

it is incapable of directly assessing the probability or severity 

of the explosion event. 

The current technology was accomplished by leveraging 

work done as part of a recent NESC investigation into developing 

validated tools for blast wave propagation modeling. While 

significant accomplishments were made during that investigation, one of the key recommendations was to determine 

a valid and engineering-level approach for predicting vapor 

cloud explosion sources. This was the key motivation for an 

FY15 Center Innovation Fund project at Stennis Space Center 

(SSC) that focused on robust and accurate computational 

fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling for hydrogen combustion and 

explosion dynamics. The new technology was implemented in 

the Loci/CHEM CFD tool suite, which originally was developed 

by Mississippi State University. The results of this effort in 

predicting the occurrence and effects of hydrogen propellant 

deflagration and detonations were documented recently in the 

NASA Technical Publication, NASA/TP-2016-219220. 

Application of the new explosion modeling technology 

was conducted recently to address concerns regarding 

potential hydrogen explosions on the SSC B-1/B-2 Test 

Stands. Specifically, it was necessary to quantify the impact 

of possible explosion scenarios on the SLS Core Stage. A 

team from SSC, MSFC and Bangham Engineering, Inc., 

exploded balloons filled with hydrogen-oxygen mixtures. 

A snapshot of one of the explosion events is provided in 

Figure 1. Blast probes were positioned throughout the test 

facility to obtain the overpressure environments generated. 

CFD analyses of the hydrogen-oxygen balloon explosions 

were also conducted with the newly developed modeling 

tool. A visualization of the shock and compression waves 

predicted for the explosion is shown in Figure 2. These types 

of results provided a greater understanding of the flameacoustic coupling that was occurring in the combustion zone. 

In addition, the CFD modeling approach was proven to predict 

both the near- and far-field overpressures with excellent 

agreement to the empirical data obtained. Current efforts are 

now focused on expanding the modeling capability to include 

hydrocarbon propellants.

For more information, contact Danny Allgood, 

Stennis Space Center, daniel.c.allgood@nasa.gov.

INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES 49 2017 NESC Technical Update

48 INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES

 2017 NESC Technical Update

The cyan line shows the track of the 

debris and the yellow line connects the 

closest point on each object.

Spacecraft Proximity Analysis Using the

Exploration Visualization Environment

Advanced Modeling of

Rocket Explosion Events

Photo: Explosion of a hydrogen-oxygen filled balloon on the B-1 Test Stand at NASA Stennis Space Center. The Hydrogen

Unconfined Test Apparatus (HUCTA) device used for generating the near spherical explosion was provided by Bangham Engineering, 

Inc. Illustration: CFD Predictions of the HUCTA device. Grey scale contours are a numerical Schlieren image depicting shock and 

compression waves ahead of the flame front. The combustion zone is indicated by the superimposed color contours of gas temperature.

The yellow lines show the closest point of approach between each 

panel and the SLS core body, while the red, green, and blue lines show 

the path of each panel.

Proximity of Jettisoned 

Debris Relative to the 

ISS after 35 Hours
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES 51 2017 NESC Technical Update

50 INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES

 2017 NESC Technical Update

Accelerance Decoupling 

for Modal Test

Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) cells are widely used in consumer products. Recent 

well-publicized events involving Li-Ion 

batteries in devices such as laptop computers, electric cars, commercial aircraft 

and even toys have drawn attention to 

the phenomenon of thermal runaway 

– where stored energy within the cell 

is rapidly released as heat along with 

vented effluents. With increased use of 

Li-Ion cells in space applications such 

as extravehicular activity hardware, care 

must be taken to ensure the battery design does not promote propagation of 

thermal runaway to adjacent cells. 

Thermal runaway can be studied 

through calorimetry - a precise measurement of heat liberated during the 

thermal runaway process. Existing calorimetric methods such as Accelerating 

Rate Calorimetry (ARC) provide data on 

the total energy yield from a cell during 

thermal runaway. But ARC cannot separate the fraction of energy conducting 

through the cell casing from that venting 

from the cell. Understanding how the 

released energy is apportioned informs 

the design process, improves the ability 

to model heat transfer in the battery and 

allows for more effective thermal runaway mitigations in the battery design.

A new calorimeter for the popular 

18650-sized Li-Ion cell has been developed under an NESC assessment and 

is designed to measure the total energy 

yield as well as the fractions conducted and vented. An instrumented cell is 

placed into the cell chamber and heated 

until thermal runaway is triggered. Separate heat transfer paths measure the 

energy yield from the cell as its energy 

is conducted through the calorimeter. 

Effluents can be collected for further 

analysis. For more information, contact: 

Steven Rickman, Johnson Space Center, steven.l.rickman@nasa.gov.

A new method called Norton-Thevenin Receptance 

Coupling (NTRC) has been developed to perform coupled loads 

analysis (CLA). NTRC attempts to reduce the dependency of 

the payload organization on high CLA costs, long analysis 

schedules, lack of standard capabilities to evaluate multiple 

payload configurations, and unavailability of launch loads from 

the launch vehicle (LV) provider when needed.

NTRC provides a tool that payload developers can use 

to obtain launch loads at a fraction of the cost of a CLA at any 

time it is required in the payload design cycle. While NTRC 

is not intended to replace the formal load cycles performed 

by the LV provider, it will provide the ability to reduce the 

conservatism in defining preliminary design loads, assess 

the impact of design changes between formal load cycles, 

perform trade studies, and perform parametric loads analysis 

where many different design configurations can be evaluated 

with a minimum amount of data required from the LV provider. 

NTRC condenses all the necessary information into the 

launch vehicle to payload/s connection points or boundary 

degrees-of-freedom (BD). The launch vehicle model is represented by its impedance at its BDs; its forcing functions are 

represented by the acceleration at those BDs when the payload 

is absent; and the payload is represented by its impedance at 

the same BDs. Payload responses are represented by transfer 

functions of selected response to interface BDs.

The NTRC methodology is exact in the frequency domain. 

Time domain replication and accuracy is outstanding. In order 

to deploy NTRC Agency wide and get the return on investment, 

a second phase is envisioned to benchmark the whole set of 

CLA events for the Agency’s most utilized launch vehicles. 

A NASA New Technology Report has been filed. e-NTR#: 

1450108519. For more information, contact Daniel Kaufman, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, daniel.s.kaufman@nasa.gov.

Calorimetry of Lithium-ion

Cells During Thermal Runaway

Fast Coupled Loads 

Analysis Method:

Norton-Thevenin

Receptance Coupling

AD solves the problem by reversing the coupling 

process used in the receptance coupling method. In 

addition, AD provides a solution that meets three additional desirable conditions: it uses only measured 

data, does not require measurements internal to the 

ML, and it solves directly for the free-free modes. The 

methodology does not require an intermediate step of 

model correlation. AD does, however, require an additional set of measurements be made from the MPCV/

SLS/ML and ML modal tests in this example. These 

measurements are required in order to form the accelerance matrices (see matrix equation below) from 

which the decoupling process is implemented.

AD is also expected to be of high value for dynamic interaction tests of spacecraft and space hardware when attached to their integration stand. Use of 

the methodology avoids needing to suspend or base 

isolate the hardware to verify on-orbit jitter compliance 

caused by disturbance sources such as cryogenic 

coolers, step motors, and sensor mechanisms. The 

methodology is currently being evaluated to assess 

noise tolerance. A NASA New Technology Report has 

been filed. e-NTR#: 1499964335.

For more information, contact:

Daniel Kaufman

Goddard Space Flight Center

daniel.s.kaufman@nasa.gov

A new methodology for modal tests has been developed called Accelerance Decoupling 

(AD), which overcomes the problem that free-free modal data could not be directly obtained 

from the integrated vehicle while on launch platform. This methodology is being applied to 

acquire the free-free modal data needed by the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle for 

loads and flight controls, which cannot be directly obtained from the integrated SLS/mobile 

launcher (ML) test in the Vehicle Assembly Building. The ML represents an elastic boundary 

condition for the combined Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)/SLS and it is non-traditional 

(neither fixed nor free-free) and very challenging for a modal test.

Matrix Subscript Key:

a - SLS

b - Mobile Launcher + Tower

c - SLS + Mobile Launcher + Tower

The calorimeter’s energy yield 

algorithm software tallies the energy 

release by analyzing temperature 

changes in the calorimeter as a result 

of the thermal runaway.

Transfer

Accelerances

Driving Point

Accelerances s

T

s

f

r

b

F

Transfer

Accelerance

Harf = Hcrf + Hars [ Hass + Hbss ] -1 Hasf

ACCELERANCE DECOUPLING METHODOLOGY

a

-20 1 2 3 4 5

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

Interface accelerations in LV thrust direction capturing all 

relevant characteristics of Pad Separation CLA.

Time (s)

Nonlinear CLA

NTRC

Interface Accelerations m/s2
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 prevailing engineering paradigms.

Christopher B. Kostyk In recognition of persistence and 

extraordinary attention to detail in personally assessing and 

correcting the redactions to the voluminous commercial crew 

program frangible joint final technical report, thus averting the 

release of commercial crew partner proprietary data

NESC Leadership Award

Honors individuals who have had a pronounced effect upon the 

technical activities of the NESC.

Bruce A. Davis In recognition of outstanding leadership 

in coordinating the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s 

hypervelocity impact testing for the Micrometeoroid and Orbital 

Debris Pressure Vessel Failure Criteria Assessment

Dwayne R. Morgan In recognition of outstanding engineering 

leadership in support to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s 

Commercial Crew Program Avionics Architecture Review Assessment

Michelle T. Rudd In recognition of outstanding execution of the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Shell Buckling Knockdown 

Factor Project 8-ft diameter seamless metallic barrel buckling test

Omar Torres In recognition of outstanding technical leadership 

as the Guidance, Navigation, and Control co-lead of the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center’s Commercial Crew Program 

Avionics Architecture Review Assessment

Karen J. Weiland In recognition of exceptional leadership 

in the planning and implementation of the NASA Model-Based 

Systems Engineering pathfinder

NESC Engineering Excellence Award

Honors individual accomplishments of NESC job-related tasks of 

such magnitude and merit as to deserve special recognition.

Mark Balas In recognition of engineering excellence to the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s stability assessment of the 

Space Launch System Flight Control System

Joe B. Blondin In recognition of engineering excellence to 

the Hubble Space Telescope Gyroscope Anomaly and Reliability 

Investigation in support of the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center’s elevated motor current investigation

Yuan Chen In recognition of engineering excellence to the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center in establishing approaches 

and guidelines regarding the use of commercial-off-the-shelf 

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromagnetic parts for the Commercial 

Crew Program and other NASA flight programs

Raymond L. Ladbury In recognition of engineering excellence 

Left to right: FRONT ROW Dwayne Morgan (WFF); Neil Dennehy (NESC); Michelle Rudd (MSFC); Marta Shelton (WFF); Mark Balas (Univ. of Tenn.); Peter Berg 

(Aerodyne Industries); Dawn Schaible (NASA Deputy Chief Engineer/presenter); Timmy Wilson (NESC Director/presenter); SECOND ROW Michael Kirsch (NESC Deputy 

Director/presenter); Yuan Chen (LaRC); Jonathan Tylka (WSTF); Raymond Ladbury (GSFC); Simone Hurley (LaRC); Jessica Knizhnik (GSFC); Omar Torres (LaRC); 

THIRD ROW Alan Davis (Jacobs Engineering); Tannen VanZwieten (NESC); Christopher Matty (JSC); Christopher Kostyk (AFRC); Karen Weiland (GRC); Marc Sarrel (JPL); 

Darren McKnight (Integrity Applications, Inc.); Daniel Hicks (MSFC); Not pictured: Joe Blondin (independent consultant)

to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Avionics Electrical, 

Electronic, and Electromagnetic parts radiation guideline activities for 

the Commercial Crew Program and other NASA spaceflight programs

Christopher M. Matty In recognition of engineering excellence 

for analysis of the F/A-18 Environmental Control System in support 

of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Physiological Episode 

Assessment Team

Marc A. Sarrel In recognition of engineering excellence in 

support of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Exploration 

Systems Development and Commercial Crew Program Verification 

and Validation Assessments

Marta B. Shelton In recognition of engineering excellence 

for data and analysis support of the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center’s F/A-18 Physiological Episode Assessment for the United 

States Navy

Jonathan M. Tylka In recognition of engineering excellence 

in support of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center’s Additively 

Manufactured Metals in Oxygen Systems task

NESC Administrative Excellence Award

Honors individual accomplishments or contributions that contributed 

substantially to support NESC’s mission.

Simone E. Hurley In recognition of outstanding human 

resource support to the NASA Engineering and Safety Center

NESC Group Achievement Award

Honors a group of employees comprised of government and nongovernment personnel for outstanding accomplishment through the 

coordination of individual efforts that have contributed substantially 

to the accomplishment of the NESC’s mission.

Commercial Crew Program Avionics Architecture 

Review Team In recognition of outstanding engineering 

excellence and leadership to the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center’s Commercial Crew Program Avionics Architecture Review 

Assessment

Cross Program Verification and Validation Integration 

and Mapping Assessment Team In recognition of 

outstanding technical achievement in support of the NASA 

Engineering and Safety Center’s Exploration Systems Development 

Cross Program Verification and Validation Integration and Mapping 

Assessment

Evaluation of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk 

Predictions with Available On-Orbit Assets Team 

In recognition of the effort to compare spacecraft risk to recorded 

failures in order to evaluate NASA’s micrometeoroid and orbital 

debris risk assessment process

Model Based Systems Engineering Pathfinder Team

In recognition of exceptional innovation and passion in the pursuit of 

modernizing NASA’s Systems Engineering capacity via model based 

systems engineering

NESC Honor 

Awards

Engineering and Technical 

Excellence and Fostering an 

Open Environment

NESC Honor Awards are given each year 

to NASA Center employees, industry 

representatives, and other stakeholders for 

their efforts and achievements in the areas 

of engineering, leadership, teamwork, and 

communication. 

These honorary awards formally identify 

individuals and groups who have made 

outstanding contributions to NESC’s 

mission and who demonstrate the following 

characteristics: 

NESC HONOR AWARDS 53 2017 NESC Technical Update
See nesc.nasa.gov for full bios

NESC Leadership

Timmy R.

Wilson

Director

Michael T.

Kirsch

Deputy Director

Michael P.

Blythe

Deputy Director

for Safety

Jill L.

Prince

Manager, NESC 

Integration Office

Dr. Daniel 

Winterhalter

Chief

Scientist

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Stephen A.

Minute

KSC

Dr. W. Lance

Richards

AFRC

Paul W.

Roberts

LaRC

Kimberly A.

Simpson

JPL

Michael D.

Smiles

SSC

T. Scott

West

JSC

Michael L. 

Aguilar

Software

Jon B.

Holladay

Systems 

Engineering

Daniel G.

Murri

Flight 

Mechanics

Richard W.

Russell

Materials

Dr. Thomas M. 

Brown

Propulsion

Dr. Christopher J. 

Iannello

Electrical

Power

Dr. Cynthia H.

Null

Human

Factors

Dr. David M.

Schuster

Aerosciences

Cornelius J.

Dennehy

Guidance, 

Navigation, and 

Control

Dr. Curtis E. 

Larsen

Loads and 

Dynamics

Dr. William H. 

Prosser

Nondestructive

Evaluation

Vacant

Structures

Dr. Michael J. 

Dube

Mechanical

Systems

Michael L.

Meyer

Cryogenics

Steven L.

Rickman

Passive

Thermal

Oscar

Gonzalez

Avionics

Dr. Joseph I. 

Minow

Space 

Environments

Henry A.

Rotter

Environmental 

Control/Life Support

NESC PRINCIPAL ENGINEERS

NESC CHIEF ENGINEERS

NASA TECHNICAL FELLOWS

Steven J.

Gentz

MSFC

Kenneth R.

Hamm, Jr.

ARC

George L.

Jackson

GSFC

Clinton H.

Cragg

Dr. Nancy J.

Currie-Gregg

Michael D.

Squire

Robert S.

Jankovsky

GRC

Vacant

Chief 

Astronaut

Dr. Michael G. 

Gilbert

Dr. Upendra N. 

Singh 

Sensors/

Instrumentation

Patrick A.

Martin

NASA HQ Senior S&MA 

Integration Manager

FRANK H. BAUER

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Guidance Navigation and 

Control (2003-04)

J. LARRY CRAWFORD

NESC Deputy Director for 

Safety (2003-04)

DR. CHARLES J. CAMARDA

NESC Deputy Director for 

Advanced Projects (2006-09)

KENNETH D. CAMERON

NESC Deputy Director for 

Safety (2005-08)

STEVEN F. CASH

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2005) 

DERRICK J. CHESTON

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center (2003-07)

MITCHELL L. DAVIS

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Avionics (2007-09) 

DENNIS B. DILLMAN

NESC Chief Engineer at NASA 

Headquarters (2005-08) 

FREDDIE DOUGLAS, III

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center

(2007-08) 

PATRICIA L. DUNNINGTON

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2006-08)

DAWN C. EMERSON

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center

(2011-14)

WALTER C. ENGELUND

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Langley Research Center 

(2009-13)

PATRICK G. FORRESTER

NESC Chief Astronaut

(2009-16)

WAYNE R. FRAZIER

Senior SMA Integration 

Manager (2005-12)

DR. MICHAEL S. FREEMAN

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames 

Research Center (2003-04)

T. RANDY GALLOWAY

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center

(2003-04)

ROBERTO GARCIA

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion (2007-13)

DR. EDWARD R. 

GENERAZIO

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Nondestructive Evaluation 

(2003-05)

DR. RICHARD J.

GILBRECH

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-05) 

MICHAEL HAGOPIAN

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

(2003-07)

DAVID A. HAMILTON

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Johnson Space Center 

(2003-07) 

DR. CHARLES E. HARRIS

NESC Principal Engineer 

(2003-06) 

DR. STEVEN A. HAWLEY

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2003-04) 

MARC S. HOLLANDER

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2005-06)

GEORGE D. HOPSON

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Propulsion (2003-07) 

KEITH L. HUDKINS

NASA Headquarters Office 

of the Chief Engineer 

Representative (2003-07) 

DANNY D. JOHNSTON

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2003-04) 

MICHAEL W. KEHOE

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Dryden Flight Research Center 

(2003-05)

R. LLOYD KEITH

NESC Chief Engineer at Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (2007-16)

DENNEY J. KEYS

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Electrical Power (2009-12)

DR. DEAN A. KONTINOS

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames 

Research Center (2006-07)

JULIE A. KRAMER WHITE

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Mechanical Analysis (2003-06)

NANS KUNZ

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames 

Research Center (2009-15)

STEVEN G. LABBE

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Flight Sciences (2003-06) 

MATTHEW R. LANDANO

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(2003-04) 

DR. DAVID S. LECKRONE

NESC Chief Scientist (2003-06) 

RICHARD T. MANELLA

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center (2009-10) 

JOHN P. MCMANAMEN

NASA Technical Fellow 

for Mechanical Systems 

(2003-07) 

BRIAN K. MUIRHEAD

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(2005-07) 

DR. PAUL M. MUNAFO

NESC Deputy Director 

(2003-04) 

STAN C. NEWBERRY

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2003-04) 

DR. TINA L. PANONTIN

NESC Chief Engineer at Ames 

Research Center (2008-09)

JOSEPH W. PELLICCIOTTI

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Mechanical Systems 

(2008-13) and NESC Chief 

Engineer at Goddard Space 

Flight Center (2013-15)

DR. ROBERT S. PIASCIK

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Materials (2003-16)

DR. SHAMIM A. RAHMAN

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Stennis Space Center 

(2005-06) 

DR. IVATURY S. RAJU

NASA Technical Fellow for 

Structures (2003-17)

RALPH R. ROE, JR.

NESC Director (2003-14)

JERRY L. ROSS

NESC Chief Astronaut 

(2004-06) 

DR. CHARLES F. SCHAFER

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

(2006-10)

DAWN M. SCHAIBLE

Manager, Systems Engineering 

Office (2003-14)

STEVEN S. SCOTT

NESC Discipline Expert for 

Software (2003-05) and NESC 

Chief Engineer at Goddard 

Space Flight Center (2008-09) 

BRYAN K. SMITH

NESC Chief Engineer at Glenn 

Research Center (2008-10) 

DR. JAMES F. STEWART

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Armstrong Flight Research 

Center (2005-14)

DANIEL J. TENNEY

Manager, Management and 

Technical Support Office 

(2009-13)

JOHN E. TINSLEY

NASA Headquarters Senior 

Safety and Mission Assurance 

Manager for NESC (2003-04) 

TIMOTHY G. TRENKLE

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

(2009-13)

CLAYTON P. TURNER

NESC Chief Engineer at 

Langley Research Center 

(2008-09)

NESC Alumni Robert “Bob” Kichak, our colleague and friend, passed away in 

October 2017. Bob was a founding member of the NESC and our 

first NESC Discipline Expert for Power and Avionics (now known 

as NASA Technical Fellows). He was a valued member of our 

team and made numerous significant contributions to the NESC, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, and NASA. He will be remembered 

for his distinguished career and will be greatly missed.

In Memory of ROBERT A. KICHAK

NESC Discipline Expert for

Power and Avionics (2003-07)

NESC ALUMNI 55 2017 NESC Technical Update

54 NESC LEADERSHIP

 2017 NESC Technical Update
NESC Technical Papers,

Conference Proceedings, and 

Technical Presentations

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

Parker, B.: Recurring Themes from Human Spaceflight Mishaps 

During Flight Tests and Early Operations. Human Space Flight 

Knowledge Sharing Forum, November 1-2, 2016, Huntsville, AL.

2. Bauer, J. E. and Richards, W.: Comprehensive Monitoring 

and Validation throughout the Aerospace Vehicle Life-Cycle 

using Fiber Optic Sensing Technology. 25th International 

Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (OFS-25), April 24-28, 2017, 

Jeju, South Korea.

3. Beil, R. J.: Science of Test Workshop: Big Data Big Think. 

Science of Test Workshop, April 3-5, 2017, Springfield, VA.

4. Capadona, L. A.; Weiland, K.; Brady, T. K.; Holladay, J. 

B.; Rohn, D. W.; and Regenie, V. A.: Model-Based Systems 

Engineering Pathfinder. INCOSE 27th International Symposium, 

July 17-20, 2017, Adelaide, Australia.

5. Dawicke, D. S. and Raju, I. S.: Characterization of ElasticPlastic Fatigue and Fracture Behavior in Thin Sheet Aluminum. 

iDICs 2016 Conference and Workshop/SEM Fall Conference, 

November 7-10, 2016, Philadelphia, PA.

6. Dennehy, C. J.: Workshop Overview & Future Navigation 

Landscape. SCaN/HEOMD Workshop on Emerging 

Technologies for Autonomous Space Navigation, February 16-17, 

2017, WA, D.C.

7. Dennehy, C. J.: GN&C Lessons Learned and Associated 

Best Practices. ESA/ESTEC, June 6, 2017, Noordwijk, 

Netherlands.

8. Dennehy, C. J. and Wolf, A.: NASA Engineering & Safety 

Center (NESC) GN&C Technical Discipline Team (TDT) Activities 

Update. Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee 

Meeting #118, October 19, 2016, Minneapolis, MN.

9. Emmons, D.; Mazzuchi, T. A.; Sarkani, S.; and Larsen, C. 

E.: Practitioner Checklist for the Aerospace Sector. Acquisition 

Research Journal.

10. Holladay, J. and Miller, S. T.: NASA’s MBSE Pathfinder 

and New Community of Practice. NASA/JPL Symposium and 

Workshop on MBSE, January 25-27, 2017, Pasadena, CA.

11. Larsen, C. E.: Spaceflight Tragedies and Other Things to 

be Avoided. MEMS Seminar: Spaceflight Tragedies and Other 

Things to be Avoided, February 22, 2017, Durham, NC.

12. Larsen, C. E.: Structures in Space. 62nd Structural 

Engineering Conference, March 2, 2017, Lawrence, KS.

13. Larsen, C. E. and Irvine, T.: The NASA Engineering and 

Safety Center (NESC): Shock and Vibration Training Program. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environment 

Workshop, June 20-22, 2017, El Segundo, CA.

14. Minow, J. I. and Pellish, J. A.: Space Environment 

Capabilities Leadership Team Activities (CLT). Spacecraft 

Anomalies and Failures Workshop, December 6-7, 2016, 

Chantilly, VA.

15. Minow, J. I. and Neergaard Parker, L.: Extreme DMSP 

Auroral Charging: Implications for Auroral Charging Benchmarks. 

2016 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 12-

16, 2016, San Francisco, CA.

16. Minow, J. I.: On-Orbit Detection of Spacecraft Charging 

Effects. In-Space Inspection Workshop, January 31-February 2, 

2017, Houston, Texas.

17. Minow, J. I.: Challenges of the Space Environment in 

Low Earth Orbit and Beyond. Applied Space Environments 

Conference, May 15-19, 2017, Huntsville, AL.

18. Minow, J. I.; and Neergaard Parker, L.: NASA Use 

and Needs for Radiation and Spacecraft Charging Models. 

Presented at Space Environment Engineering and Science 

Applications Workshop, September 5-8, 2017, Boulder, CO. 

19. Neergaard Parker, L.; and Minow, J. I.: Applied Space 

Environments Conference (ASEC) 2017 Summary. Presented 

at Space Environment Engineering and Science Applications 

Workshop, September 5-8, 2017, Boulder, CO. 

20. Null, C. H.: Introduction to Human Measurement: Survey 

Design & Analysis. Science of Test Workshop, April 3-5, 2017, 

Springfield, VA.

21. Orr, J. S. and Dennehy, C. J.: Analysis of the X-15 Flight 

3-65-97 Divergent Limit Cycle Oscillation. Journal of Aircraft, 

Volume 54, No. 1, January 2017, p. 135-148.

22. Prosser, W. H.: SHM Challenges for Spacecraft. 26th ASNT 

Research Symposium 2017, March 13-16, 2017, Jacksonville, FL.

23. Raju, I. S.; Dawicke, D. S.; and Hampton, R. W.: Some 

Observations on Damage Tolerance Analyses in Pressure 

Vessels. AIAA SciTech 2017 and Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 

58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC, January 9-13, 2017, Grapevine, TX.

24. Rickman, S. L.; Iannello, C. J.; and Shariff, K.: Improvements 

to Wire Bundle Thermal Modeling for Ampacity Determination. 

Journal of Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer.

25. Rickman, S. L.; Richards, W.; Christiansen, E. L.; Piazza, 

A.; Pena, F.; and Parker, A. R.: Micrometeoroid/Orbital Debris 

(MMOD) Impact Detection and Location Using Fiber Optic Strain 

Sensing (FOSS). 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Structural 

Health Monitoring, December 7-9, 2016, Hobart, Australia.

26. Rickman, S. L.; Iannello, C. J.; and Shariff, K.: Improvements 

to Wire Bundle Thermal Modeling for Ampacity Determination. 

3rd World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material 

Engineering, June 9-10, 2017, Rome, Italy.

27. Rickman, S. L.: Introduction to On-Orbit Thermal 

Environments. Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop 2017, 

August 21-25, 2017, Huntsville, AL.

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

Conductances (Radks). Presented at Thermal and Fluids 

Analysis Workshop 2017, August 21-25, 2017, Huntsville, AL. 

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

Transfer. Presented at Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop 

2017, August 21-25, 2017, Huntsville, AL. 

30. Rickman, S. L.: Introduction to On-Orbit Thermal 

Environments. Presented at Thermal and Fluids Analysis 

Workshop 2017, August 21-25, 2017, Huntsville, AL. 

31. Russell, R. W.: Additive Manufacturing Certification. NASA 

Quality Assurance In Additive Manufacturing (AM), A Workshop 

On Assuring AM Product Integrity, October 11-12, 2016, 

Pasadena, CA.

32. Russell, R. W.: Supplier Issues Related to Additive 

Manufacturing Certification. 8th NASA Supply Chain Quality 

Assurance Conference, October 25-27, 2016, Greenbelt, MD.

33. Russell, R. W.: NASA Certification of Additive Manufacturing 

Parts and the Need for an Agency Standard. Aircraft 

Airworthiness & Sustainment (AA&S) 2017, May 22-25, 2017, 

Phoenix, AZ.

34. Russell, R. W.: NASA’s Plans for Certification of Additively 

Manufactured Manned Spaceflight Components. NSMMS & 

CRASTE, June 26-29, 2017, Indian Wells, CA.

35. Schuster, D. M.: Recent Events in the Evolution of NASA’s 

Aerosciences Capability. SciTech 2017, 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/

ASC, January 9-13, 2017, Grapevine, TX.

36. Simpson, K. A.; Sarrel, M. A.; and Brady, T. K.: Verification 

and Validation Analysis and Visualization Tools Using MBSE. 

2017 ASME Verification and Validation Symposium, May 3-5, 

2017, Las Vegas, NV.

37. Squire, M. D.: Satellite Anomalies and Inferencing: 

Challenges and Uncertainties When Comparing Satellite Data to 

Risk Predictions. Spacecraft Anomalies and Failures Workshop, 

December 6-7, 2016, Chantilly, VA.

38. Swanson, D. and Dennehy, C. J.: Topic #3: An Introduction 

to the Fundamentals of Control-Structure Interaction. 40th 

Annual AAS GN&C Conference, February 5-10, 2017, 

Breckenridge, CO.

39. Vanzwieten, T. S.; Hannan, M. R.; and Wall, J. H.: Evaluating 

the Stability of NASA’s Space Launch System with Adaptive 

Augmenting Control. 10th International ESA Conference on 

Guidance, Navigation & Control Systems, May 29-June 2, 2017, 

Salzburg, Australia.

40. Weiland, K. and Holladay, J. B.: NASA Model-Based 

Systems Engineering Pathfinder 2016 Summary and Path 

Forward. INCOSE International Workshop 2017, January 28-31, 

2017, Torrance, CA.

41. Weiland, K. and Holladay, J. B.: Model-Based Systems 

Engineering Pathfinder. INCOSE 27th International Symposium, 

July 17-20, 2017, Adelaide, Australia.

42. West, T. S.; Annett, M. S.; and Womack, J. M.: Deterministic 

System Design of Experiments (dsDOE) Based Frangible Joint 

Design Reliability Estimation. Science of Test Workshop, April 

3-5, 2017, Springfield, VA.

43. Wright, G.; Minow, J. I.; Neergaard Parker, L.; and Biesecker, 

D.: Maintaining Access to ACE Real-Time Solar Wind Data. 

Applied Space Environments Conference, May 15-19, 2017, 

Huntsville, AL.

44. Xapsos, M. A.; and Minow, J. I.: NASA Technical Fellow for 

Space Environments. Presented at 9th NASA Space Exploration 

and Space Weather Workshop, September 26-27, 2017, 

Greenbelt, MD.

NESC Technical Discipline 

Team Member Technical Papers, 

Conference Proceedings, and 

Technical Presentations

Avionics

1. Ladbury, R.: Strategies for SEE Hardness Assurance - From 

Buy-It-And-Fly-It to Bullet Proof. IEEE Nuclear and Space 

Radiation Effects Conference, July 17-21, 2017, New Orleans, LA. 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control

1. Marsell, B.: Nonlinear Slosh Damping Data Analysis. 

Presented at Thermal and Fluids Analysis Workshop 2017, 

August 21-25, 2017, Huntsville, AL. 

Human Factors

1. Nemeth, C.; Lay, E. A.; Blume, J.; Stephenson, J.; and 

Holbrook, J.: Using the RAG to Assess International Space 

Station Organizational Resilience. 7th Resilience Engineering 

Association Symposium, June 26-29, 2017, Liege, Belgium.

Loads and Dynamics

1. Blelloch, P. A.; Bremner, P.; Hutchings, A.; and Shah, P.: 

Validation of Methods to Predict Vibration of a Panel in the Near 

Field of a Hot Supersonic Rocket Plume. Spacecraft and Launch 

Vehicle Dynamic Environment Workshop, June 20-22, 2017, El 

Segundo, CA.

2. Blelloch, P. A.; Hutchings, A.; Vold, H.; and Yoder, N.: 

Estimating Modal Damping From Operational Tests. Spacecraft 

and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environment Workshop, June 20-

22, 2017, El Segundo, CA.

3. Irvine, T.: Statistical Energy Analysis Software & Training 

Materials, Part II. Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic 

Environments Workshop 2017, June 20-22, 2017, El, Segundo, CA.

4. Kaplan, M. and Bremner, P.: Progress in Quantifying 

Uncertainty for Vibroacoustic Environments. Spacecraft and 

Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environment Workshop, June 20-22, 

2017, El Segundo, CA.

5. Kaufman, D; Gordon, S; Majed, A: Norton-Thevenin 

Receptance Coupling (NTRC) as a Payload Design Tool. 

Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments 

Workshop, June 20 -22, 2017, El Segundo, CA.

6. Majed, A.; Henkel, E.; Kolaini, A.; Vidyasagar, S.; and Bhatia, 

S.: Special Topics in Random Vibrations. Spacecraft and 

Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environment Workshop, June 20-22, 

2017, El Segundo, CA.

Structures

1. Chiu, J. and Brown, A. M.: Characterization of the Modal 

Characteristics of Structures Operating in Dense Liquid 

Turbopumps. ASME Gas Turbo Expo 2017, June 26-30, 2017, 

Charlotte, NC.

Systems Engineering

1. Neergaard Parker, L.: Surface Charging Overview. 

Presented at Space Environment Engineering and Science 

Applications Workshop, September 5-8, 2017, Boulder, CO.

Publications

Based on NESC

Assessments and Reports

PUBLICATIONS 57 2017 NESC Technical Update
NASA Technical Memorandums

1. Space Shuttle Program (SSP) Dual Docked Operations 

(DDO). NASA/TM-2016-219350

2. Modal Mass Acceleration Curve (MMAC) Loads Analysis 

Methodology. NASA/TM-2016-219351

3. Investigation of Unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paint (uPSP) 

and a Dynamic Loads Balance to Predict Launch Vehicle Buffet 

Environments. NASA/TM-2016-219352

4. Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Crew Module (CM) 

Orbital Tube Weld Computed Radiography (CR) Assessment. 

NASA/TM-2017-219368

5. Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) 

Liner Inspection Capability Development Assessment. 

NASA/TM-2017-219369

6. Buckling Analysis of the Space Launch System (SLS) 

Core Stage Ringless Cryotanks - Updated Buckling Load 

Predictions Based on As-Built SLS Cryotank Barrel Geometry. 

NASA/TM-2017-219373

7. Buckling Test Results and Preliminary Test and Analysis 

Correlation from the 8-Foot-Diameter Orthogrid-Stiffened 

Cylinder Test Article TA02. NASA/TM-2017-219587

8. Reaction Wheel Performance for NASA Missions: 

Bradford Engineering Reaction Wheel Unit Assessment. 

NASA/TM-2017-219589

9. Space Launch System (SLS) Design Analysis Cycle (DAC)-3 

10005 Liftoff Clearance Assessment. NASA/TM-2017-219605

10. Space Launch System (SLS) Design Analysis Cycle (DAC)-3 

10005 Booster Separation Assessment. NASA/TM-2017-219606

11. Space Launch System (SLS) Service Module (SM) Panel 

Separation Clearance: Block 1 Design Analysis Cycle 3 (DAC-3). 

NASA/TM-2017-219607

12. Space Launch System (SLS) Design Analysis Cycle (DAC)-

3R 10006 Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Separation Assessment. 

NASA/TM-2017-219608

13. Space Launch System (SLS) Liftoff Clearance 

Assessment: Design Analysis Cycle 3R (DAC-3R) Update. 

NASA/TM-2017-219609

14. Space Launch System (SLS) Liftoff Clearance: 

Block 1 Vehicle Analysis Cycle 1 (VAC-1) Update. 

NASA/TM-2017-219610

15. Structural Modeling and Validation of the International Space 

Station Solar Array Wing Mast Components and Assemblies. 

NASA/TM-2017-219614

16. Structural Response of the International Space Station Solar 

Array Wing Mast to Mechanical Loads and Asymmetric Thermal 

Shadowing. NASA/TM-2017-219615

17. Structural Response of the International Space Station Solar 

Array Wing Mast to On-Orbit Asymmetric Thermal Shadowing. 

NASA/TM-2017-219616

18. Structural Response of the International Space Station Solar 

Array Wing Mast Subjected to Soyuz-Approach Mast Loading 

Combined with On-Orbit Asymmetric Thermal Shadowing. 

NASA/TM-2017-219617

19. Structural Response of the 4-Bay Thermal Vacuum 

Test Article to Asymmetric Thermal Shadowing: Modeling, 

Verification, and Validation. NASA/TM-2017-219618

20. Re-Tooling the Agency’s Engineering Predictive Practices for 

Durability and Damage Tolerance. NASA/TM-2017-219621

21. Report on Independent Verification (IV) of the Space Launch 

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

Abort Loads. NASA/TM-2017-219622

22. Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Verification and 

Validation (V&V) Integration and Mapping Assessment. 

NASA/TM-2017-219624

23. Assessment of International Space Station (ISS)/

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Lithium-ion Battery Thermal 

Runaway (TR) Severity Reduction Measures Vol I. 

NASA/TM-2017-219649/Volume I

24. Assessment of International Space Station (ISS)/

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Lithium-ion Battery Thermal 

Runaway (TR) Severity Reduction Measures Volume II Part 1. 

NASA/TM-2017-219649/Volume II/Part 1

25. Assessment of International Space Station (ISS)/

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Lithium-ion Battery Thermal 

Runaway (TR) Severity Reduction Measures Volume II Part 2. 

NASA/TM-2017-219649/Volume II/Part 2

26. Assessment of International Space Station (ISS)/

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Lithium-ion Battery Thermal 

Runaway (TR) Severity Reduction Measures Volume II Part 3. 

NASA/TM-2017-219649/Volume II/Part 3

27. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS). 

NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume I

28. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix A Part 1. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume II/Part 1

29. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix A Part 2. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume II/Part 2

30. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix B. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume III

31. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix C Part 1. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume IV/Part 1

32. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix C Part 2. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume IV/Part 2

33. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendix D. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume V

34. Analysis of Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) Response 

for Proposed Orion Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) 

Appendices E-G. NASA/TM-2017-219657/Volume VI

35. Independent Assessment of the Backshell Pressure Field for 

Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrumentation 2 (MEDLI2). 

NASA/TM-2017-219666/Volume I

36. Independent Assessment of the Backshell Pressure Field for 

Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrumentation 2 (MEDLI2) 

Appendices. NASA/TM-2017-219666/Volume II

Safety

Starts

with

Engineering

Excellence

58 PUBLICATIONS

 2017 NESC Technical Update
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681

NP-2017-10-006-LaRC

Cover Photos (clockwise from top): Computational fluid dynamics study of Mars 2020 entry at Mars; Illustration of 

Space Launch System on mobile launcher; Fiber placement during construction of a composite cylinder; International 

Space Station solar wing arrays; Photogrammetry overlays on test section of a frangible joint; Strain pattern time 

history of a composite shell during testing; RS-25 engine test 

For general information and requests

for technical assistance visit us at:

nesc.nasa.gov

For anonymous requests write to:

NESC 

NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

MAIL STOP 118

HAMPTON, VA 23681-2199