Questions? Call 800-624-6242
|
|
|
|
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 3
1
Introduction
Success in executing future NASA space missions will depend on advanced technology
developments that should already be underway. However, it has been years since NASA has had a
vigorous, broad-based program in advanced space technology. NASA’s technology base is largely
depleted, and few new, demonstrated technologies (that is, at high technology readiness levels) are
available to help NASA execute its priorities in exploration and space science. As noted in a recent
National Research Council report on the U.S. civil space program:
Future U.S. leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances that can
enable the development of more capable, reliable, and lower-cost spacecraft and launch vehicles to
achieve space program goals. A strong advanced technology development foundation is needed
also to enhance technology readiness of new missions, mitigate their technological risks, improve
the quality of cost estimates, and thereby contribute to better overall mission cost management. . . .
Yet financial support for this technology base has eroded over the years. The United States is now
living on the innovation funded in the past and has an obligation to replenish this foundational
element. (NRC, 2009, pp. 56-57)
A robust space technology base is urgently needed. The steering committee is encouraged by the
initiative NASA has taken through the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) to develop technology
roadmaps and seek input from the aerospace technical community via this study.1
Currently available technology is insufficient to accomplish many intended space missions.
Consider the following examples:
• To send humans to the Moon, Mars, or other destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), new
technologies are needed to (1) mitigate the effects of space radiation from both the cosmic ray
background and from solar flares; (2) advance the state of the art in environmental control and life
support systems (ECLSSs) so that they are highly reliable, can be easily repaired in space, and feature
closed-loop water, air, and food cycles; and (3) provide advanced fail-safe mobile pressure suits,
lightweight rovers, improved human-machine interfaces, in situ resource utilization (ISRU) systems, and
other mechanical systems that can operate in dusty, low-gravity environments.
• NASA’s future capabilities would also benefit greatly from new technologies to build robotic
vehicles that can maneuver over a wider range of gravitational, environmental, surface, and subsurface
conditions with a sufficient degree of autonomy to enhance operation at large distances from Earth.
• Commercial space activities in LEO and deep-space exploration would benefit from
advanced launch and space transportation systems, some of which may need to store and transfer
cryogenic propellants in space. In addition, deep-space exploration options could be opened up with high-
thrust electric or nuclear upper-stage propulsion systems.
• To enhance the ability of spacecraft to land on a wide variety of surfaces in our solar system,
new technologies are needed to provide guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) systems with greater
precision, and real-time recognition with trajectory adaptation for surface hazard avoidance.
1
The draft roadmaps are available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/roadmaps/index.html.
3
OCR for page 4
• Future space science missions capable of addressing the highest-priority goals in astrophysics
will need a new generation of lower-cost astronomical telescopes that can utilize advanced coolers and
camera systems, improved focal-plane arrays, and low-cost, ultra-stable, large-aperture mirrors. Likewise,
high-contrast exoplanet imaging technologies with unprecedented sensitivity, field of view, and
spectroscopy of faint objects are needed to enable discovery and characterization of exoplanets orbiting in
the habitable zones of their host stars.
NASA’s 14 draft space technology roadmaps have identified a wide variety of opportunities to
revitalize NASA’s advanced space technology development program. As it continues the process of
identifying the highest-priority technology needs, the committee is making a distinction between
technology development and engineering development. Technology development, which is the intended
focus of the draft roadmaps, addresses the process of understanding and evaluating capabilities needed to
improve or enable performance advantages over current state-of-the-art space systems. Technologies of
interest include both hardware and software, as well as testing and evaluation of hardware (from the
component level to the systems level) and software (including design tools) at various levels of
technology readiness for application in future space systems. In contrast, engineering development, which
generally attempts to implement and apply existing or available technology, is understood for the
purposes of this study to be hardware, software, design, test, verification, and validation of systems in all
phases of NASA’s acquisition process. In the final report, the set of high-priority technologies will not
include items where engineering development is the next step in advancing capabilities. The highest
priority will be assigned to areas that require technology development to improve capability, because
engineering development generally does not fall within OCT’s scope.
The steering committee will issue a final report in early 2012. The purpose of this interim report
is to provide some initial feedback on key topics related to the roadmaps. Chapter 2 includes high-level
observations that the steering committee and its six supporting panels made in reviewing the draft
technology roadmaps and interpreting some of the general cross-cutting themes from the workshop
discussions and from other public comments received by the committee. Chapter 3 identifies gaps that the
committee believes need to be brought to NASA’s attention through this interim report. The committee is
addressing those gaps by changing the technology breakdown structure (TABS) as indicated in Table 3.1
and Appendix C. The evaluation and prioritization of high-priority technologies that will be presented in
the final report are based on the TABS as modified by the committee in this interim report.
REFERENCES
NRC (National Research Council). 2009. America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program
with National Needs. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12701.html.
4
