National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRP 

A Publication of NASA Research Park

POST

THE

2022 Issue 1

Hangar 1 

Restoration 

Begins
NRP Post

2 www.nasa.gov

IN THIS ISSUE

3 | CAL FIRE Operations at NASA Ames

CAL FIRE expands its firefighting and rescue operations 

at NASA Ames 

4 | CMU Designed Satellite Launched Into 

Low-Earth Orbit

Brandon Lucia’s lab developed the Tartan-Artibeus-1 Satellite, the world’s first battery-less PocketQube satellite, 

deployed to low-Earth orbit aboard the SpaceX Transporter-3 Rocket

6 | Breakthrough Initiatives and SETI Finding 

Signals

The blc1 signal is not alien - but it is a huge leap forward 

for SETI

10 | Hangar 1 Restoration Begins

Planetary Ventures began restoration efforts to Hangar 1 

at NASA Ames

12 | RMV Develops ESD Evaluation Protocols

NASA Industry Partner Develops ESD Evaluation 

Protocols for Launch Integrity and CubeSat Startup Success

On April 4, 2022, Ames Center Director Dr. Tu and UC Berkeley Chancellor 

Christ’s respective leadership teams met 

to discuss potential research 

collaborative opportunities. Photo Credit: NASA Ames/Dominc Hart

COVER

On May 6, Ames was honored to host U.S. Congresswomen Anna G. Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren. Reps. Eshoo 

and Lofgren joined Ames Center Director Dr. Tu as well 

as our partners at Planetary Ventures to mark the start 

of a new beginning for Hangar One, the historic Bay 

Area landmark and reminder of our region’s importance to early aviation.
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 3

NRP Post

CAL FIRE Operations at 

NASA Ames

CAL FIRE operates 10 fire/rescue helitack 

bases across California. The local helicopter stationed in Los Gatos near the Lexington Reservoir is being replaced with a new 

Sikorsky Blackhawk s70i. This helicopter 

is much larger and heavier than the current 

1970’s Bell “Huey” and the current facility 

isn’t large enough for the new ship. CAL 

FIRE approached NASA Ames about the 

possibility of relocating the base to their 

facility. After initial discussions, it was determined that a partnership would be in the 

interest of both organizations. 

CAL FIRE has leased a portion of Hangar 

N211 to store the CAL FIRE Hawk and the 

former shop at N248B to house the support 

vehicles and firefighting tool storage. This 

will be used to store the Huey in inclement 

weather until the new CAL FIRE Hawk arrives and the transition training takes place. 

CAL FIRE also needs a location to sleep, 

feed, and train the firefighters onsite. It was 

determined that modular buildings would 

be purchased by CAL FIRE and placed 

next to N211 and barracks to be placed at 

the intersection of McCord and Bushnell 

Street.

The personnel assigned to the facility 

will include Fire Pilots, Fire Captains, Fire 

Apparatus Engineers, Firefighters, and a 

Mechanic. The new helicopter will include 

a fixed rescue winch for air rescue operations and carries 1000 gallons of water 

compared to the 325 gallons for the Huey. 

The copter will transition to a 24-hour operation in 2023 where there will be a day and 

night shift. CAL FIRE is excited to be a part 

of the NASA Ames community. If you see 

someone in a CAL FIRE uniform, please 

feel free to come to say hi! 
NRP Post

4 www.nasa.gov

SpaceX had a successful Falcon 9 launch 

of Transporter-3 to orbit from Space 

Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape 

Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on January 13, 2022. Aboard was the 

Tartan-Artibeus-1 Satellite, developed at 

Carnegie Mellon University, where it was 

deployed to low-Earth orbit on the SpaceX 

Transporter-3 Rocket. It was launched as 

part of the Alba Unicorn constellation under the name Unicorn-2TA1.

“Our lab developed the Tartan-Artibeus-1 

Satellite, which is what we believe to be 

the world’s first battery-less PocketQube 

nanosatellite,” said Brandon Lucia, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering. “This project was led 

by Ph.D. students Brad Denby and Emily 

Ruppel from my lab and in collaboration 

with Alba Orbital, our launch services provider.”

The mission’s goal was to demonstrate 

the viability of PocketQube-scale nanosatellites that operate reliably without 

batteries, eliminating the cost and complexity of battery-based power systems 

in nanosatellites. The sensor-equipped, 

5cm cube (1/8 the size of a CubeSat) can 

sense its environment and perform orbital 

edge computing to process sensor data 

in a way that is robust to intermittent operation.

During the mission, the satellite collected 

telemetry data about its operation (power 

state, stored energy, GPS location) and 

collected and processed sensor data 

about its environment using applications 

such as machine learning and inference. 

The results were sent back to Earth using 

a low-power radio.

Satellite designed at CMU 

launches into low-Earth orbit

Brandon Lucia’s lab developed the Tartan-Artibeus-1 

Satellite, the world’s first battery-less PocketQube 

nanosatellite, deployed to low-Earth orbit aboard the SpaceX 

Transporter-3 Rocket.

By Krista Burns
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 5

NRP Post

“A unique aspect of this mission was that 

while on orbit, the satellite ran Cote, a 

physics-based orbital dynamics model 

and orbital edge computing simulator that 

we developed, giving the satellite better 

situational awareness without the need to 

communicate to earth,” said Lucia. “This 

battery-less satellite is the first of its kind 

and we are very excited for the new scientific results enabled by this unique deployment to Earth’s orbit.”

Falcon 9’s first stage booster previously launched Crew Demo-2, ANASIS-II, 

CRS-21, Transporter-1, and five Starlink 

missions. Following stage separation, 

SpaceX will land Falcon 9’s first stage on 

Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1) at Cape Canaveral 

Space Force Station.

Transporter-3 is SpaceX’s third dedicated rideshare mission, and on board this 

launch were 105 spacecraft (including 

CubeSats, microsats, PocketQubes, and 

orbital transfer vehicles).

Photo (top): SpaceX Falcon 9 launch of 

Transporter-3 to orbit from Space Launch 

Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral 

Space Force Station in Florida on January 

13, 2022. Photo courtesy of SpaceX.

Source: College of 

Engineering

Professor 

Brandon Lucia 

with his lab 

students.
NRP Post

6 www.nasa.gov

In October 2020, members of the Breakthrough 

Listen Initiative performed a standard SETI 

search of radio observations from Proxima Centauri. Our search algorithm flagged a signal that 

we couldn’t immediately explain. This is the story 

of that signal, blc1, and the journey to understand its origin.

Act I: A Mysterious Signal Is Detected...

In April 2019, the Breakthrough Listen Initiative 

performed observations of our nearest stellar 

neighbor, Proxima Centauri (ProxCen), with the 

Parkes Murriyang telescope in Australia. We 

were originally searching for stellar flares; learning more about these flares can help us understand the habitability of planets around small, 

M-dwarf stars like ProxCen. Two years later, the 

same data were reanalyzed in the context of 

SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, 

looking for technological radio activity from 

ProxCen. Shane Smith, an REU student working with Breakthrough Listen over the summer in 

2020, was the first one to notice that our routine 

analysis had picked up something unusual. His 

mentor, Danny Price, posted that plot into our research group’s Slack channel. For once, no one 

in the group had an immediate answer to what 

could’ve caused the signal in that plot.

This style of plot is known as a “waterfall plot 

cadence”. The top shows the first observation of 

the night, continuing downwards in time. From 

right to left, the radio frequency progresses from 

low to high. And the color of the plot indicates 

the strength of radio emission detected, with 

the green static indicating no emission, and the 

brighter (yellower) lines indicating strong emission. 

With an expert’s eye, there are a number of 

things that stand out about the linear feature in 

this waterfall plot cadence:

The blc1 signal is not alien - but it 

is a huge leap forward for SETI

By Sofia Z. Sheikh
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 7

NRP Post

T hat plot - containing what became known as 

blc1 - looks like this:

1. It was a few-Hz wide narrowband signal. Signals this narrow have no known astrophysical 

source and must be generated by technology.

2. It had a drift rate (slope) that was non-zero, 

which is expected for a transmitter untethered to 

the surface of the Earth.

3. The signal appeared to be absent in the offsource observations (panels not labeled “ProxCen”) as would be expected for a signal coming 

from a single point on the sky.

4. The drift rate appeared approximately linear in 

each 30 minute panel but seemed to shift over 

time between panels, as would be expected for a 

transmitter in a rotational or orbital environment.

5. The signal persisted for a few hours - human-made satellites and aircraft tend to move 

through the telescope beam and disappear much 

faster than that.

I had just finished submitting my last postdoctoral 

application of the cycle an hour before this meeting and was fully intending to take a nice work 

break for awhile... but as soon as I saw this signal, 

I was intrigued. I volunteered to lead the analysis.

Act II: Evidence Mounts for a Human Origin

Looking for “fingerprints”

A signal’s characteristics - its frequency, drift rate, 

drift rate evolution, brightness over time, and more 

can serve as a sort of “fingerprint” that can help us 

identify its origin. The first thing that we did was try 

to find a match for blc1’s parametric fingerprint. 

We looked for transmitters that were licensed 

and known to transmit in this frequency band (reserved for aeronautical purposes in Australia). We 
8 www.nasa.gov

NRP Post

compared the drift rate to cars and planes and 

satellites and asteroid reflections and the telescopes own motion, etc. etc. etc. We checked 

whether the telescope was pointing in the direction of a nearby building, say, the visitor’s center. 

We checked the temperature logs for signs of 

heating or cooling in the instrument room, we 

checked for any events occurring on-site or at 

nearby facilities, we checked telescope status 

and chat logs to look for any abnormalities. No 

match.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to do the same 

matching exercise for the “fingerprints” of an 

extraterrestrial signal, as we don’t know what 

characteristics we would expect from them. 

However, we can search for “green flags” that 

match reasonable assumptions. For example, 

let’s assume that there’s a transmitter on the 

surface of ProxCen c, the terrestrial planet in 

the habitable zone of ProxCen. That transmitter 

should vanish for a while as its planet rotates it 

away from us, and its drift rate and frequency 

should change with the planet’s orbit. These are 

features that we already know (or can infer) from 

radial velocity exoplanet studies of ProxCen. So 

we checked for these green flags as well. Still 

no match.

The most consistent explanation, therefore, is 

single-frequency transmitter that is being electronically-modulated - for example, a relatively 

high-grade commercial crystal oscillator with a 

temperature-induced drift. In other words, we 

found no perfect match for the transmitter on 

Earth, but it’s broadly consistent with Earthbased radio frequency interference. And we 

found no additional evidence, in this investigation, that implies that the signal was coming 

from space.

Searching for patterns in time and (frequency) 

space

To identify whether a signal is radio frequency 

interference, it can be useful to look for similar 

signals and see if they are radio frequency interference.

One way to define a “similar signal” is to look for 

signals with the same “fingerprint” as blc1 that 

occurred during other observing sessions. Firstly, we checked for similar signals on the days 

before and after the blc1 observation.

And we do find a match!

Or at least, a close enough match. We find four 

instances of similar signals to blc1 - with the 

same frequency and drift rate - from other days 

of the ProxCen observing campaign. They aren’t 

identical to blc1, but are extremely close in their 

parameters. 

These similar signals appear no matter where 

the telescope is pointed, including the off-target 

observations in each cadence: they are all radio 

frequency interference.

That doesn’t conclusively prove that blc1 is radio frequency interference, but it should definitely make us skeptical.

Next, we looked for similar signals at other frequencies during the blc1 observation. Transmitters will often send information over multiple 

frequencies at the same time, so looking for 

“lookalike” signals with the same shape, but at 

other frequencies, may give us more clues to 

blc1’s origin.
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 9

NRP Post

This search revealed a set of dozens of blc1 lookalikes across the bandwidth of our receiver. Some 

of them even looked like blc1 but were mirrored in 

direction, and some were related to each other by 

integer multiples of commonly-chosen clock oscillator frequencies in human electronics (ex. 133.333 

MHz). This behaviour may seem strange, but it is 

a characteristic of a particular kind of transmitter 

inefficiency or malfunction called intermodulation 

production.

other frequencies, compared to blc1

All of these intermodulation products appeared 

when the telescope was pointed at ProxCen, but 

also appeared when it was pointed away from 

ProxCen: they were radio frequency interference.

Taken all together, we see similar signals to blc1 

across many frequencies and on many days. And 

every time we see them, they are radio frequency 

interference. This implies that blc1 is an intermodulation product of some Earth-based transmitter.

Act III: We prepare for the next signal-of-interest

At this point, you might be disappointed - our investigation concluded that blc1 is not an alien signal. So why are we even talking about it any more? 

Because it was the closest call that the Breakthrough Listen project has ever investigated, and 

therefore, the most deeply interrogated signal-of-interest in human history. 

And, if that isn’t cool enough on its own, we can 

use that information to prepare for the next signal-of-interest. There had been a lot of discussion 

about what to do in theory if a signal passed our 

initial thresholds, but we’d never had to actually put 

those discussions into practice before. Now we’ve 

developed a procedure for the post-detection of a 

signal-of-interest (see below), we have developed 

the code to perform these analyses, and we have 

considered the best way to balance the timely release of data and code with responsible scientific 

due diligence. 

A very complicated flowchart showing the method 

we developed for verifying a signal-of-interest. For 

a more thorough explanation of the process, see 

our blc1 webpage. Figure: Z. Sheikh

In the end, blc1 was the first-ever signal that fooled 

our search algorithm and required such an in-depth 

characterization and analysis. But it won’t be the 

last! We look forward to bringing you a ‘blc2’ someday as we continue the exciting search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Sofia Z. Sheikh

Post-doctoral Researcher

University of California, 

Berkeley
10 www.nasa.gov

NRP Post

Hangar 1 

Restoration

By Elena Serna 
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 11

NRP Post

Under the Planetary Ventures, LLC, (PV) 

Moffett Federal Airfield Lease Agreement, PV began restoration efforts on 

the iconic Hangar 1. Historically, this 

building was used to store the USS Macon and as a base for aviation programs. 

After years of being vacant, this giant 

freestanding structure will undergo massive restoration improvements.

Full-scale abatement started in Spring 

2022. The engineering evaluation/cost 

analysis (EE/CA) report recommended 

removing impacted paint from the structural elements of the hangar. PV is moving forward with this recommendation, 

which will take approximately two years 

to complete. 

 Abatement will occur in sections and 

structural upgrades and recoating work 

will commence thereafter—all of which 

is planned to occur during the two year 

abatement time frame. After this initial 

phase, the re-cladding/re-skinning of the 

hangar will take place. PV plans to replicate, as closely as possible, the original 

visual characteristics of Hangar 1. The 

re-cladding/re-skinning work is expected to be complete in 2025. 

When restoration is complete, the historic landmark will be repurposed and 

used once again. Stay tuned for future 

updates on how Hangar 1 will be used 

once its restoration is complete. 

Hangar 1
12 www.nasa.gov

NRP Post

NASA Industry Partner 

Develops ESD Evaluation 

Protocols for Launch Integrity 

and CubeSat Startup Success!

By Bob Vermillion, Moffett Field, California

CubeSat programs have been established, not only at NASA centers, but 

also universities throughout the USA, UK, 

Europe, and Asia. CubeSats are miniaturized 

in size compared to traditional satellites. Under the leadership of Professor Alice Smith, 

Ph.D., Auburn University’s SmallSat program thrived in hosting the NASA Academy 

of Aerospace Quality (AAQ). The author, an 

AAQ Expert, lectured on ESD preventative 

safeguards for the build and deployment of 

CubeSats. Other U.S.A. based universities 

that have initiated a SmallSat program include Texas-El Paso, Stanford, UC Berkeley, 

Cal Poly (PolySats), Cornell, Arizona & Arizona State, Michigan, Purdue, Hawaii, Utah & 

Utah State, UCLA, USC, Brown, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, Santa Clara, 

Alabama, and many others. NASA Ames is 

amongst the leaders in small satellite innovation. CubeSat functionality after surviving a 

launch or deployment from space, however, 

has posed issues. 

JPL has taken cleanliness and ESD control 

for their interplanetary CubeSats to a different level. The iNARTE® Certified Aerospace 

& Defense ESD Engineering training at NASA 

Ames is a valuable resource for university 

and CubeSat manufacturers to learn NASA 

-STD-8739.6B, Secrion 7 protocols in the 

assembly process of flight hardware. 

For qualification testing of the TuPod, RMV 

verified the survivability of the system from 

ESD discharges and Triboelectrification 

before lift-off. The Subject Matter Experts 

(SMEs) of RMV appear to be the first to qualify additive manufactured materials for static 

control reliability. Due to the increased usage of additive manufacturing on the ISS, 

ESD materials are critical for deployment in 

space. 

Facts as of 1 January 1, 2022

•Nanosats launched: 1802

•CubeSats launched: 1663

•Interplanetary CubeSats: 2

•Nanosats destroyed on launch: 102

•Most nanosats on a rocket: 120

•Countries with nanosats: 76

•Companies in database: 558

•Forecast: over 2500 nanosats to 

 launch in 6 years
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 13

NRP Post

Resistance testing verifies the TuPod’s electrical conductivity properties after the additive manufacturing process. Several attempts 

by suppliers have failed to achieve uniform 

dispersion of additive materials to achieve the 

proper conductivity level. In a 2002 conversation with Ray Gompf. Ph.D., PE (NASA KSC, 

Retired), ESD events take place during lift-off 

as the rocket creates its own little lightning 

bolts.

The TuPod deployment cylinder outside and 

inside surface resistance was measured in 

the static shielding range to insure electrical 

conductivity. (Figure 4)

The spring-loaded TuPod that deploys 2 

TubeSats was mounted on a grounded surface plate (Figure 3) and subjected to electrostatic decay testing. Initially charged to ±1.0kV, 

the grounded 1-inch cylinder contacted the 

top TubeSat to initiate electrostatic decay for 

a cutoff at ±100 volts. An acceptable limit is 

<2.0 seconds and the TuPod measured 0.06 

seconds from 1.0kV to 100 volts and 0.01 

seconds from -1.0kV to -100 volts. Successful deployment is more effective when both 

TuPod and TubeSats are at equal potentials.

For the final ESD test, a component simulator device (CSD) sensitive to <100 volts was 

placed inside the closed TuPod). The TuPod’s 

outer surface was subjected to 5kV human 

body model (HBM) discharges at various locations. The CSD passed the HVD shielding 

test for the TuPod (Figure 2). 

CubeSat Reliability Testing 

consisted of the following: 

1. Resistance Testing

2. Static Decay Testing

3. High Voltage Discharge Shielding

4. Proprietary RMV Test Method to

map Material Reliability in harsh 

conditions

Speed kills and one must factor in microprocessor densification (Figure 1) as ESD Sensitive 

Devices (ESDS) can be damaged at <50 volts. 

A researcher can neither discount nor overlook 

ESD procedures. Figure 2

Figure 1
14 www.nasa.gov

NRP Post

ESD Protection from Assembly to 

Deployment:

Today’s ESDS are easily damaged without 

proper handling for static control integrity, 

storage and transport. During deployment, 

separation of TubeSat from the TuPod creates Field Induced Model (FIM) discharges 

and exposure to change generating hazards 

and turbulance.

In short, the first article TuPod passed preliminary ESD testing. Moreover, Teton Aerospace assembled the components followReferences:

1. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001, For

 Electrostatic Discharge Sensi 

 tivity Testing Human Body 

 Model

2. Model (HBM) Component 

 Level, ESD Association 

 Standard, Aug 28, 2014.

3. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-002, For 

 Electrostatic Discharge 

 Sensitivity Testing Charged 

 Device

4. NASA-STD-8739.6B, 

 Workmanship Manual for 

 Electrostatic Discharge Control 

5. Special thanks to Amin 

 Djamshidpour, Co-Founder

 Teton Aerospace, 

 amin@tetonsys.com

ing NASA-STD-8739.6B ESD protocols to 

insure successful operational deployment 

into space. 

Bob Vermillion, CPP, Fellow, is a Certified 

Product Safety & ESD Engineer-iNARTE® 

with proven subject matter expertise in the 

mitigation of Triboelectrification for harsh 

environments and troubleshooting of robotics, systems and engineered materials 

The spring-loaded TuPod that deploys 2 TubeSats was mounted on 

a grounded surface plate and subjected to electrostatic decay testing. 

Initially charged to 1.0kV, the grounded 1-inch cylinder contacted the top 

TubeSat to initiate electrostatic decay for a cutoff at 100 volts. An acceptable limit is <2.0 seconds and 

the TuPod measured 0.06 seconds 

from 1.0kV to 100 volts and 0.01 seconds from -1.0kV to -100 olts. Successful deployment is more effective 

with both at equal potentials.

Figure 3
www.nasa.gov/researchpark 15

NRP Post

(displays, flexible electronics, 3D materials) 

for aerospace & defense, medical device, 

pharmaceutical, biotechnology, automotive 

and the electronics sectors. One of Bob’s 

developments was NASA Mars Mission 

approved. Vermillion received the James 

A. Russell Lifetime Achievement Award for 

Packaging Engineering Innovation for Protection of the WarFighter in 2018 and one 

year later was inducted into the Military 

Packaging Hall of Fame. Since 2014, Bob 

is an active participant of the NASA ESD 

Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) as the 

Agency Technical Authority for ESD, Founder and Co-Chair of the SAE G19 Sub-Committee for Packaging of EEE parts. Vermillion 

is Founder and CEO of RMV Technology 

Group, LLC, a NASA Industry Partner and 

3rd Party advanced ESD Materials Testing, 

Training, and Consulting Company. 

Bob Vermillion can be reached at 

bob@esdrmv.com or 650-964-4792. 

You can also visit our websites at 

www.esdaerospacetraining.org and 

www.esdrmv.com 

Resistance testing verifies the TuPod’s electrical conductivity properties after the additive 

manufacturing process. Several attempts by suppliers have failed to achieve uniform dispersion of additive materials to achieve the proper conductivity level. In a 2002 conversation with Ray Gompf. Ph.D., PE (NASA KSC, Retired), ESD events take place during lift-off 

as the rocket creates its own little lightning bolts. 

Figure 4
16 www.nasa.gov

NRP Post

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRP 

A Publication of NASA Research Park

POST

NP-2022-06-01-ARC

NASA Research Park

Editor, Layout and Design: TED TRIANO

Phone: (650) 604-2NRP

Email: arc-dl-nrp-post@mail.nasa.gov

Website: www.nasa.gov/researchpark