2025 STTR Phase I Research Subtopic Pre-Release.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Small Business

Technology Transfer (STTR)

Phase I

Fiscal Year 2025 Research Subtopics

Fiscal Year 2025 STTR Phase I Research Subtopics

Contents

Research Subtopics for STTR

T3.05: Lunar Orbital Power Beaming Technology Development (STTR)

T5.06: Non-Earth Orbit Conjunction Risk Analysis (STTR)

T5.07: Communications Quality of Service (QoS) Optimization Through Network Autonomy (STTR)

T6.09: Human-Autonomous System Integration for Deep Space Tactical Anomaly Response in Smart Habitats

(STTR)

T7.04: Lunar Surface Site Preparation (STTR)

T8.06: Quantum Sensing/Measurement and Communication (STTR)

T8.07: Photonic Integrated Circuits (STTR)

T8.08: Lunar Imagery (STTR)

T11.05: Model-Based Enterprise (STTR)

T12.01: Additively Manufactured Electronics for Space Applications (STTR)

T12.10: Low-Cost Manufacturing and Integration of Reusable Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) (STTR)

T12.11: Biomanufacturing for Space Missions: Harnessing Microbial Communities for Sustainable Production in

Moon and Mars Environments (STTR)

T12.12: Spray Processing of Oxide Dispersion Strengthened (ODS) Alloy GRX-810 (STTR)

T13.02: High-Efficiency, Reliable Electrical Subsystems for Cryogenic Pumps (STTR)

T15.04: Full-Scale (Passenger/Cargo) Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Scaling, Propulsion, Aerodynamics, and Acoustics Investigations (STTR)

Appendix B: STTR and the Technology Taxonomy

Research Subtopics for STTR

The STTR subtopics are organized by subtopic number. Appendix B contains a list of the subtopics as they align to the 2024 NASA Technology Taxonomy to help you identify subtopics based on technology areas.

In addition, there are some SBIR subtopics that may be closely aligned with the NASA STTR program. Consider both programs when planning to apply.

NASA uses the same subtopic numbering convention for the STTR program each year:

For STTR Subtopics:

T – Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

Think of the subtopic lead/participating centers as potential customers for your STTR technical proposals. Multiple centers may have interests across the subtopics within a Technology Taxonomy area.

Guidance for Locating Subtopic Reference Materials

Each subtopic contains references that are intended to provide additional information about the technology need. Some of those references include technical articles that may be available through NASA’s Technical Reports

Server (NTRS) or through other technical journals or sources. NTRS (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/) provides access to publicly available scientific and technical documents, images and videos created or funded by NASA. While we work to only reference publicly available documents, if you find that referenced technical articles are behind a paywall, please contact your local library to request assistance in obtaining access.

Subtopic Pointers

Related subtopic pointers are identified in some subtopic headers to assist you with identifying other subtopics that seek related technologies for different customers or applications. It is your responsibility to select which subtopic to propose.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/

T3.05: Lunar Orbital Power Beaming Technology Development (STTR)

Related Subtopic Pointers: Z-LIVE.01

Lead Center: GRC

Participating Center(s): N/A

Subtopic Introduction:

Solar arrays that replenish batteries are a mainstay for most space missions. Unlike spacecraft, however, conducting science missions on the Moon is severely restricted due to its motion relative to the Sun. Near the lunar equator, operations are limited to two weeks or less due to long lunar nights that plunge systems into very cold temperatures for weeks at a time and typically force those systems to shut down permanently. Near the lunar poles, the topography creates permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) that make it impossible to collect solar power in those regions, significantly hampering exploration.

Carrying enough battery power to operate through these conditions is not a tractable solution as this would require much larger landers or alternative energy sources such as radioisotopes that are cost prohibitive. Although surface-based power beaming is being considered as a cost-effective solution for some missions, this option limits the scope and reach to just tens of kilometers from fixed locations on the lunar surface. Alternatively, an orbiting beamed power spacecraft would complement more traditional solutions and be able to extend the scientific reach across much of the lunar surface. Adopting this approach could add years of science operations to lunar rovers and other systems.

A recent study found that orbiting laser beamed power using currently available technology could reduce the cost of globally distributed lunar science missions by as much as 30%. Technology development to bring this technology to flight readiness could make this a practical solution for many different NASA missions. These technologies include:

• Photovoltaic cells with high efficiency for use with both laser and broadband-solar spectrums, with a particular interest in performance at laser wavelength around 1.06 microns.

• Photovoltaic arrays that retain high efficiency under non-uniform illumination.

• Improved laser efficiencies and lifetimes with high optical beam quality.

• Methods to achieve sub-microradian pointing, including effects of vibration and jitter of the platform.

These same technologies would also benefit many other important applications, including higher bandwidth and longer-range communications, position, navigation, and timing (PNT), and high-performance remote-sensing applications. The proposed technology developments could also advance prior work done through the NASA Space

Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) programs including the Lunar Surface Technology Research (LuSTR) program, Project Moonbeam-Beamed Lunar Power within the Deep-Space Optical Communications (DSOC) program, and NASA Space Technology Graduate Research Opportunities (NSTGRO) university programs.

Scope Title: Lunar Orbital Power Beaming Technology Development

Scope Description:

A recent study found that orbiting laser beamed power using currently available technology could reduce the cost of globally distributed lunar science missions by as much as 30%. Technology development to bring this technology to flight readiness could make this a practical solution for many different NASA missions. These technologies include:

• Dual-use photovoltaics efficient for use with both laser and broadband-solar spectrums.

• Photovoltaic arrays that retain high efficiency under non-uniform illumination.

• Improved laser efficiencies and lifetimes.

• High optical beam quality for large aperture systems under large thermal loads.

• Active optics with sub-microradian pointing.

• Ultra-stable space platforms with very low levels of vibration and jitter.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 3 to 5

Primary Technology Taxonomy:

• Level 1: TX 03 Aerospace Power and Energy Storage

• Level 2: TX 03.3 Power Management and Distribution

Desired Deliverables of Phase I and Phase II:

• Research

• Analysis

• Prototype

Desired Deliverables Description:

Phase I deliverables would include research, analysis, and test results showing the feasibility of the problem solutions as well as improvements in efficiency and usability of laser power beaming systems.

Phase II deliverables ideally would include samples and/or prototypes suitable for testing at NASA.

State of the Art and Critical Gaps:

Small-scale demonstrations of laser beamed power have shown that the technology is feasible, but bringing this innovation to flight readiness will require advances in our technological readiness. Efficiency is always of critical interest in power systems, and improvements in efficiency of both the photovoltaic converter and the laser would be desirable. In particular, many laser beaming proposals suggest use of a laser at a wavelength at or near 1.06 microns.

Further, development of laser-conversion cells capable of commercial large-area production with high efficiency at this wavelength is desirable. Since most operational uses envision use of the same cells with solar input when sunlight is available, dual-use (laser and solar) performance is also important.

Another technology gap stems from the fact that laser illumination differs from solar input because it may be non-uniform; therefore, approaches to dealing with arrays that do not lose efficiency under non-uniform illumination are desired. Finally, for applications envisioning laser beaming from orbital stations to users on the planetary or lunar surfaces, analyses show that beam pointing, including the effects of spacecraft vibrations and jitter, may be a critical factor in performance, and thus practical concepts for dealing with sub-microradian beam pointing from spacecraft platforms will be of interest.

Relevance / Science Traceability:

This technology will be relevant to multiple NASA missions as a means of sending power from where it is produced to where it is needed. In particular, lunar exploration is currently focused on the south polar regions of the Moon, including permanently shadowed regions, where solar power is not available. Power beaming by laser will be useful for these applications for human and robotic missions.

References:

1. G. Landis, S. Oleson, et al., “Power Beaming from Lunar Orbit for Small Science Landers,” paper

AIAA-2024-4938, AIAA ASCEND (Accelerating Space Commerce, Exploration, and New Discovery)

Conference 2024, 30 July-1 August 2024, Las Vegas NV.

2. G. Landis, S. Oleson, et al., “Design Study of Surface to Surface Laser Power Beaming on the Moon,”

Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium Spring Meeting, April 23-25, 2024, Laurel, MD.

3. K. Jin and W. Zhou, “Wireless Laser Power Transmission: A Review of Recent Progress,” IEEE

Transactions on Power Electronics, Volume 34, No. 4, pp. 3842 - 3859. 2018. DOI:

10.1109/TPEL.2018.2853156.

4. Green, M.A., Zhao, J., Wang A., and Wenham, S.R., “45% efficient silicon photovoltaic cell under monochromatic light", Electron Device Lett., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 317-318, 1992.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/145070

5. Jomen, R., Tanaka, F., Akiba, T., Ikeda, M., Kiryu, K., Matsushita, M., Maenaka, H., Dai, P., Lu, S. and

Uchida, S., “Conversion efficiencies of single-junction III–V solar cells based on InGaP, GaAs, InGaAsP, and InGaAs for laser wireless power transmission,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.

57, No. 8S3, July 17, 2018. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/JJAP.57.08RD12

6. Moonbeam - Beamed Lunar Power (LuSTR):

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/space-tech-research-grants/moonbeam-beamed-lunar-power/

T5.06: Non-Earth Orbit Conjunction Risk Analysis (STTR)

Related Subtopic Pointers: H9.03, S14.01

Lead Center: GSFC

Participating Center(s): HQ, JPL

Because there is no catalog of objects available to compute close approach predictions for spacecraft orbiting about locations other than Earth, conjunction assessment (CA) screenings may only be determined by screening provided ephemerides against each other. This function is performed by the NASA Multi-mission Automated Deep-space

Conjunction Assessment Process (MADCAP) team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). MADCAP currently screens spacecraft orbiting the Moon, Mars, and various libration points. The MADCAP team identifies close approaches and notifies operator teams so they can work together to mitigate the close approach, as necessary.

The ability to perform close approach risk assessment and make mitigation decisions more accurately and rapidly will improve space safety for all spaceflight operations. This subtopic seeks innovative technologies to improve the

CA risk assessment process for MADCAP.

Scope Title: Non-Earth Orbit Conjunction Risk Analysis

There is an increasing number of spacecraft orbiting other solar system bodies, such as the Moon and Mars. Unlike for Earth-orbiting objects, deep space spacecraft are not tracked by the Space Surveillance Network, so all trajectory data must be provided by the respective navigation teams that compute orbits based on tracking data obtained from suitable deep space antenna. These orbit determination solutions are provided as ephemerides to MADCAP for screening to predict close approaches against other objects flying in the same orbit regime.

This subtopic seeks innovative technologies to improve the risk assessment process, including the following specific areas (see Reference 1 for the 2020 NASA Technology Taxonomy (TX) areas TX05.6.4, TX10.1.4, TX10.1.5, and

TX10.1.6):

• Novel, efficient methods for locating the minimum distance and location of the closest approach between objects with reduced run times and/or increased accuracy: Solutions that assume elliptical orbits are acceptable, but those that allow for hyperbolic orbits are preferred. An efficient method that applies universally to noncoplanar orbits would also be beneficial as it would eliminate the need to check for coplanarity and to switch algorithms.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8404085 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/145070 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/JJAP.57.08RD12 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/JJAP.57.08RD12 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/JJAP.57.08RD12 https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/space-tech-research-grants/moonbeam-beamed-lunar-power/

• Methods to detect and track debris objects and inactive satellites in the lunar or Martian orbital environments: Objects in these environments currently cannot be passively tracked from Earth ground stations and can pose a hazard to spacecraft actively operating there. A method for a spacecraft/lander to find debris objects and maintain tracking knowledge of them with regular updates would allow

MADCAP to perform conjunction assessments and warn active satellites of possible collisions.

• Frame representation and conjunction risk calculation for cislunar orbits: When not in orbit about a central body, and with hyperbolic or weak-stability orbits, it is not entirely clear what coordinate system representation should be used to achieve Gaussian error representations and to produce probabilities of collision (or other risk metrics) that will be representative. The problem requires a detailed investigation that considers the full range of cislunar orbit types to determine recommendations for possible scenarios.

• Collision risk thresholds and mitigation recommendations: Some cislunar destinations will preserve any created debris essentially forever (luminaries with little to no atmosphere; stable Lagrange points), so collision risk aversion may need to be much higher than for many Earth orbits. A parameterized examination of the situation is required to develop recommendations for collision risk thresholds and sizes/strategies of resultant mitigation actions.

• Data Actionability Criteria: An embryotic cislunar catalogue is likely to contain many entries with low tracking densities and long propagation times. Accuracy tolerances for different orbits, perhaps as a function of tracking density, are necessary to develop criteria to identify situations in which the data quality is too poor to serve as a basis for risk assessment.

Disclaimer: Technology Available (TAV) subtopics may include an offer to license NASA Intellectual Property

(NASA IP) on a nonexclusive, royalty-free basis for research use under the STTR award. When included in a TAV subtopic as an available technology, use of the available NASA IP is strictly voluntary. Whether a firm uses available NASA IP within their proposal effort will not in any way be a factor in the selection for award.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 2 to 6

• Level 1: TX 05 Communications, Navigation, and Orbital Debris Tracking and Characterization

Systems

• Level 2: TX 05.6 Networking and Ground Based Orbital Debris Tracking and Management

• Software

Phase I research should demonstrate technical feasibility and include delivery to NASA of preliminary software and a plan toward Phase II integration.

Phase II new technology development efforts shall deliver components at the TRL 5 to 6 level to NASA, with mature algorithms and software components complete and preliminary integration and testing in a quasi-operational environment.

The number of conjunction events is expected to increase with the increase of resident space objects from large constellations, the ability to track smaller objects, the increasing numbers of CubeSat/SmallSats, and the proliferation of space debris. Thus, MADCAP has identified the following challenges to which we are actively looking for solutions:

• Efficient ways to perform conjunction analysis and assessments such as methods for bundling events and performing ensemble risk assessment.

• Middle-duration risk assessment (longer duration than possible for discrete events but shorter than decades-long analyses that use gas dynamics assumptions).

• Improved CA event risk evolution prediction.

• Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence (ML/AI) applied to CA risk assessment parameters and/or event evolution.

The decision space for collision avoidance relies not only on the quality of the data (state and covariance) but also the tools and techniques for CA.

This technology is relevant and needed for all missions in the near-Earth, cislunar, lunar, and other solar system environments. The ability to perform conjunction risk analysis more accurately will improve space safety for all operations involving orbiting spacecraft.

1. 2020 NASA Technology Taxonomy: https://www.nasa.gov/otps/2020-nasa-technology-taxonomy/

2. Alfano, S. “A numerical implementation of spherical object collision probability.” The Journal of the

Astronautical Sciences 53, no. 1 (2005): 103-109, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03546397

3. Balch, M. S., Martin, R., and Ferson, S., “Satellite conjunction analysis and the false confidence theorem.” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 475, no. 2227 (2019): 20180565, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0565

4. Frigm, R. C., Hejduk, M. D., Johnson, L. C., and Plakalovic, D. “Total probability of collision as a metric for finite conjunction assessment and collision risk management.” Proceedings of the Advanced

Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, Wailea, Maui, Hawaii. 2015.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150018410/downloads/20150018410.pdf

5. NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Office: https://www.nasa.gov/conjunction-assessment

6. Office of the Chief Engineer, “NASA Procedural Requirements: NASA Spacecraft Conjunction

Analysis and Collision Avoidance for Space Environment Protection,” NPR 8079.1.

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8079&s=1

7. NASA Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook:

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCE_docs/OCE_50.pdf

8. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) Recommended Standard for Conjunction

Data Messages: https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/508x0b1e2c2.pdf

9. Tarzi, Z., Berry, D., and Roncoli, R. “An Updated Process for Automated Deep Space Conjunction

Assessment,” Paper AAS 14-373, 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Munich, Germany, October 2015.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/an_updated_process_for_automated_deepspace_con junction_assessment.pdf.

10. Berry, D., Tarzi, Z., Roncoli, R., Wilson, R. “Automated Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment at Mars and the Moon-A Five Year Update”, Paper 2810036, 14th International Conference on Space

Operations, Marseille, France, May 2018, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/madcap-spaceops-2018-paper.pdf?emrc=cb8474

11. Tarzi, Z. B., Young, B. T., Berry, D. S. “Deriving Event Thresholds and Collision Probability for

Automated Conjunction Assessment at Mars and the Moon”, AAS 22-042, 2022 AAS/AIAA

Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Charlotte, NC, August, 2022. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aas_22-042_paper.pdf?emrc=878ced

12. NASA's Space Sustainability Strategy: https://www.nasa.gov/spacesustainability https://www.nasa.gov/otps/2020-nasa-technology-taxonomy/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03546397 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0565 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150018410/downloads/20150018410.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/conjunction-assessment https://www.nasa.gov/conjunction-assessment https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8079&s=1 https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCE_docs/OCE_50.pdf https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.ccsds.org%2FPubs%2F508x0b1e2c2.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cdiane.t.nguyen%40nasa.gov%7C002e00755cdc4f4c763b08daad5c2c6a%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C638012908639094474%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uASTOecdSJzGc1%2B%2BVFD4C8tJ808HTHI9HE6KHEEwYXk%3D&reserved=0 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/an_updated_process_for_automated_deepspace_conjunction_assessment.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/an_updated_process_for_automated_deepspace_conjunction_assessment.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/madcap-spaceops-2018-paper.pdf?emrc=cb8474 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/madcap-spaceops-2018-paper.pdf?emrc=cb8474 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aas_22-042_paper.pdf?emrc=878ced https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aas_22-042_paper.pdf?emrc=878ced https://www.nasa.gov/spacesustainability

T5.07: Communications Quality of Service (QoS) Optimization Through

Network Autonomy (STTR)

Lead Center: GRC

The goal of this subtopic is to address a significant technology gap to enable Adaptive Space Network Management

(ASNM) and cognitive networking for future missions supporting Artemis and beyond. Communication QoS is a measure of network performance and reliability for a particular network service. Autonomous network management and cognitive networking can be used to ensure a guaranteed level of network performance based on a system optimization policy, rather than human operator input. Maturation of QoS optimization and network autonomy will enable high-rate multimedia streaming from the lunar surface (greater than 4K streaming bandwidth), management of resources in multi-node/multi-hop networks, dynamic service requests, and seamless roaming between service providers.

The topic seeks research and prototype development of an autonomous network management system, including secure multimedia streaming capabilities, autonomous node configuration, and user policy management. This topic improves upon a previous Space Technology Research Grants (STRG) Early-Stage Innovations Topic, “Cognitive

Networking Advancements for Lunar Communication and Navigation,” which focused on cognitive routing for delay tolerant networking (DTN) multi-hop networks on the lunar surface. DTN network management, network security, and multimedia streaming are among the top priorities for investigation and development within several agency and international working groups (NASA DTN Working Group, Consultative Committee for Space Data

Systems, and the Internet Engineering Task Force).

This subtopic is of interest to several NASA centers that participate in these working groups including Glenn

Research Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, and

Johnson Space Center.

Scope Title: Quality of Service Policy Management

Network service management is a key technology focused on enabling the future interplanetary internet, supporting programs such as the International Space Station, Artemis, and beyond. High-rate optical links will enable increased science data return, provide high-quality multimedia capabilities essential for human space exploration, and serve as trunk lines connecting the Earth to the Moon. Future space networks are soon to become a combination of commercial service providers, NASA space assets, and international agency partners. This diverse network will require interoperable standards, services that are efficient, reliable, and secure, and solutions for scalable network management. Technologies such as DTN address the basic challenges of the space communication environment

(long round-trip times, link asymmetry, intermittent connectivity) while providing a framework to address the requirements of the modern space network.

NASA’s Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) program is focused on infusing DTN into space networks and science missions. The first generation of DTN protocols and architecture has been implemented and demonstrated; however, several major areas have been identified that will improve the efficiency, reliability, and scalability of network operations. Network management capabilities are required to administer and configure DTN nodes and must operate within and complement existing spacecraft scheduling and management systems. Secure architectures, protocols, and applications must be developed to provide end-to-end security of mission data. User applications and operator interfaces must be developed to increase the utility of DTN technologies. High-rate and high-definition multimedia streaming will enable crewed missions and improve science data returns.

Examples of specific research and/or technology development areas of interest include:

• Path-to-standardization of DTN node configuration and management.

• Multimedia, secure streaming over DTN.

• Analysis of interplanetary security architectures.

• User policy management for service providers.

• Scalable network management approaches.

Proposals to this subtopic should consider application to a lunar and/or Martian communications architecture consisting of surface assets (e.g., astronauts, science stations, and surface relays), communication relay satellites, and gateway and ground stations on Earth. Relay satellites and surface assets require technology with low size, weight, and power (SWaP) suitable for small satellite (e.g., 50 kg) or CubeSat operations. Proposed solutions should highlight advancements to provide the needed communications capability while minimizing use of onboard resources, such as power and propellant. Proposals should consider how the technology can mature into a successful demonstration in the Moon to Mars architecture.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 3 to 6

• Level 2: TX 05.3 Internetworking

• Hardware

Phase I will study technical feasibility, infusion potential for lunar and deep space operations, and clear/achievable benefits, and show a path toward a Phase II implementation. Phase I deliverables include a feasibility assessment and concept of operations of the research topic, simulations and/or measurements, validation of the proposed approach to develop a given product (Technology Readiness Level [TRL] 4), and a plan for further development of the specific capabilities or products to be performed in Phase II. Early development, integration, test, and delivery of prototype hardware/software is encouraged.

Phase II will emphasize hardware/software/model development with delivery of a specific product for NASA targeting future demonstration missions. Phase II deliverables include a working prototype (engineering model) of the proposed product/platform or software, along with documentation of development, capabilities, related documents, and tools. NASA will then be able to modify and use the capability, or hardware component(s), and evaluate performance in the lunar or deep space architecture for greater infusion potential. Hardware prototypes shall show a path toward flight demonstration, such as a flight qualification approach and preliminary estimates of thermal, vibration, and radiation capabilities of the flight hardware. Software prototypes shall be implemented on platforms that have a clear path to a flight-qualifiable platform. Algorithms and channel models must be implemented in software and should be ready to be run on an appropriate general-purpose processor.

Opportunities and plans should be identified for technology commercialization. Software applications and platform/infrastructure deliverables shall comply with the latest NASA standards. The deliverable shall be demonstrated in a relevant emulated environment and have a clear path to a flight implementation on a SWaP-constrained platform.

NASA and private industry have developed several baseline DTN implementations. Common components include

Bundle Protocol version 7, Licklider Transmission Protocol, and Bundle Protocol Security. The Consultative

Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) is tracking these components, along with Schedule Aware Bundle

Routing, for standardization. Variations of their implementation have been demonstrated in a spaceflight environment. Draft specifications are available for streaming over DTN and QoS approaches; however, prototype implementations are needed to perform proof-of-concept studies to refine the specifications.

Critical gaps between the state of the art and the technology need include:

• User policy management for QoS, security, and other service policy agreements.

• Analysis of security architectures and security key management.

• Applications to improve operations and network utility.

• Subnetting architectures and capabilities.

• Testing frameworks for deep-space interplanetary exploration, containerization, federated testbeds and cloud-based approaches.

• Small-scale lightweight DTN applications for radiation hardened processors, field programmable gate arrays, and embedded systems (Reduced Instruction Set Computer [RISC] and Advanced RISC Machine

[ARM] processors, systems with 1 GB of RAM or less).

• Applications for automated configuration management, monitoring, and analyzing network performance.

• Technologies for interfacing and managing heterogenous networks, particularly between DTN and proposed space surface networks like the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).

• DTN node autoconfiguration, parameter tuning, and discovery.

• Standardization of software-defined networking approaches, scheduling interfaces, and application programming interfaces.

DTN has been identified as a key technology to enable the future lunar network, as well as deep-space missions from the Moon to Mars. Network policy management for QoS, video streaming, and security are needed for crewed missions. The majority of lunar and deep space operations will be run remotely from Earth, which could require substantial coordination and planning as NASA, foreign space agencies, and commercial interests all place assets on the Moon and beyond. As future communications and networks become more complex, automation and network management are essential to mitigate complexity and reduce operations costs. Management interfaces and protocols must be implemented in a standardized fashion. DTN can provide the basis for these protocols.

1. LunaNet Interoperability Specification: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/lunanet-interoperability-specification/

2. NASA Develops Advanced Space Communications Process: https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-develops-advanced-space-communications-process/

3. DTN Mission Resources: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-comms/delay-disruption-tolerant-networking-mission-resources/

4. NASA’s Lunar Communications and Navigation Architecture:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230016359/downloads/Lunar%20Communications%20and%20Navi gation%20Architecture.pdf

Implementations

1. https://github.com/nasa/DTNME

2. https://github.com/nasa/bp

3. https://github.com/nasa/HDTN

4. https://github.com/nasa-jpl/ION-DTN https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/lunanet-interoperability-specification/ https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/lunanet-interoperability-specification/ https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-develops-advanced-space-communications-process/ https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-develops-advanced-space-communications-process/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-comms/delay-disruption-tolerant-networking-mission-resources/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-comms/delay-disruption-tolerant-networking-mission-resources/ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230016359/downloads/Lunar%20Communications%20and%20Navigation%20Architecture.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230016359/downloads/Lunar%20Communications%20and%20Navigation%20Architecture.pdf https://github.com/nasa/DTNME https://github.com/nasa/bp https://github.com/nasa/HDTN https://github.com/nasa-jpl/ION-DTN

Specifications

1. Licklider Transmission Protocol for CCSDS: https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x1b1.pdf

2. CCSDS Bundle Protocol Specification: https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.2-P-

1.1/734x2p11e1.pdf

3. CCSDS Bundle Protocol Security Specification: https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.5-R-

2/734x5r2.pdf

4. Schedule Aware Bundle Routing: https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x3b1.pdf

5. Specification for RTP as Transport for Audio and Video over DTN:

https://public.ccsds.org/Lists/CCSDS%207663R2/766x3r2.pdf

T6.09: Human-Autonomous System Integration for Deep Space Tactical

Anomaly Response in Smart Habitats (STTR)

Related Subtopic Pointers: S17.03

Lead Center: ARC

Participating Center(s): JSC

The state of the art in human spaceflight is defined and modeled by current operations for the International Space

Station (ISS). The ISS is continuously crewed, requires astronauts to perform maintenance activities within and outside the habitat, is supported by a large mission control staff in real time, and has nearly continuous, large bandwidth data communications from space to ground. Beyond ISS, NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture outlines a very different concept of operations where habitats will be intermittently occupied and there is reduced mission control support due to the longer communication latencies as well as limited data bandwidth.

Future orbital and surface deep space habitats will require resilient and autonomous operations during times when crew are and are not on board. These new smart habitats will require a functional, hospitable, and safe environment for astronauts, necessitating advances in robotics and in automated and autonomous systems. New capabilities should address critical challenges faced by future deep space habitats.

NASA needs systems engineering for smart habitats across the full life cycle of design, implementation, verification, and operations. This subtopic solicits designs for human-autonomous system integration for deep space tactical anomaly response in future smart habitats. In the area of anomaly response systems, proposals may cover any life cycle phase, from design tools to system design to verification methods.

Scope Title: Understanding Fault Propagation and Fault Action Impacts in an

Integrated/Human-Autonomy System for Smart Habitats

A critical focus for smart habitats is the appropriate and necessary balance between human and autonomous system intervention during anomalies. Onboard autonomous systems will be used to: (1) collect a wide array of sensor information, (2) integrate heterogeneous data from various vehicle subsystems, (3) identify and predict system/subsystem/hardware required maintenance, (4) diagnose subsystem faults, and (5) recommend resolutions after malfunctions. Humans will need to process all information and recommendations provided by the autonomous systems. While this is true for both onboard astronauts and on-Earth mission control flight controllers, astronauts will have a more challenging time as they may not have immediate access to on-Earth support. It will be essential to provide astronauts with the capability to respond to anomaly events in deep space missions.

https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x1b1.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.2-P-1.1/734x2p11e1.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.2-P-1.1/734x2p11e1.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.5-R-2/734x5r2.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/review/CCSDS%20734.5-R-2/734x5r2.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x3b1.pdf https://public.ccsds.org/Lists/CCSDS%207663R2/766x3r2.pdf

When an anomaly occurs in deep space, decision support systems will identify the source(s) of the anomaly and recommend a course of action. This will require future smart habitats to have data fusion capabilities that combine heterogenous onboard sensor data and onboard processing of large data analytics. Developing the task model and system design for an integrated anomaly response functionality in a remote smart habitat will require exceptional systems engineering tools. These anomaly responses will need to be assessed for their ability to provide safe and effective controls in both known and unknown scenarios. Uncertainty, perception, and human situational awareness are all factors that add complexity to the system under design. Tools are needed that can reduce the complexity of the design space and allow for various types of analysis of the anomaly response system design to support eventual verification and validation of the integrated human-autonomy system.

It is unlikely that any astronaut will be constantly monitoring spacecraft health and performance. When alerted about an anomaly, they will need to quickly recover situation awareness to swiftly make a judgment regarding subsequent recommended fault recovery. Additionally, the autonomous system must convey the potential of cascading failures that may result due to the recommended recovery action. This is also a type of situation awareness for the astronaut to project the state of the spacecraft based on current actions. Astronauts will need to quickly rationalize through a large information space and select a fault recovery action that maintains safety and does not compromise other subsystems. Enabling astronauts to make complex decisions and prioritize actions in a time- and safety-critical moment is crucial for long-distance, long-duration exploration missions.

NASA needs system engineering tools to design robust human-automation systems in smart habitats, enabling fault detection, isolation, and resolution (FDIR) that successfully and safely integrate fault propagation and fault action impacts across all subsystems and that support astronauts and flight controllers during anomalies.

• Level 1: TX 10 Autonomous Systems

• Level 2: TX 10.3 Collaboration and Interaction

Phase I deliverables include use cases/scenarios, preliminary designs, etc., for anomaly responses in smart habitats.

Phase II deliverables include new technology or prototypes confirmed through integrated demonstrations as well as recommendations. Ideally, deliverables would be open-sourced and include algorithms, models, and/or software prototypes.

Three inter-related subsystems must be modeled (e.g., power, life support, thermal, food system, or payload) and interface with a smart habitat technology (e.g., prognostic algorithms, digital twin, and FDIR) to generate suggested fault recovery actions based on an inserted anomaly or malfunction. Wizard of Oz integration is not permissible— that is, a computer system being operated or partially operated by an unseen human does not meet success criteria. If applicable, human-in-the-loop evaluation is expected (e.g., designing and prototyping user interface).

Currently, NASA envisions including smart habitats in deep space exploration missions. This requires developing new autonomous systems that support the entire life cycle of the anomaly response systems—design, implementation, verification, and operation. Moreover, human operators who manage the habitat onboard or remotely must be able to successfully operate these systems. One particular area of interest is FDIR and the various methods, algorithms, models, and analyses that can be leveraged in the future. Anomaly responses will need to be assessed for their ability to provide safe and effective controls in known and unknown scenarios.

Shortfalls Addressed:

• 1523: Earth Independent Human Operations Within Habitat Elements

• 1532: Autonomous Planning, Scheduling, and Decision-Support to Enable Sustained Earth-Independent

Missions

• 1535: Autonomous Vehicle, System, Habitat, and Infrastructure Health Monitoring and Management

• 1543: Multi-Agent Robotic Coordination and Interoperability for Cooperative Task Planning and

Performance

This subtopic is most relevant to the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) but also the Exploration

Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) and Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD). These technologies will advance development of planned habitats for the Moon and Mars.

1. Fong, T. W., Frank, J. D., Badger, J. M., Nesnas, I. A., & Feary, M. S. (2018, May). Autonomous systems taxonomy. In Autonomous Systems CLT Meeting (No. ARC-E-DAA-TN56290).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180003082

2. Marquez, J. J., Adelstein, B. D., Chang, M. L., Ellis, S. R., Hambuchen, K. A., & Howard, R. L. (2017).

Future Exploration Missions' Tasks Associated with the Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and

Automation/Robotic Integration (NASA/TM-2017-219516).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180004123

3. Badger, J., Higbee, D., Kennedy, T., Vitalpur, S., Sargusingh, M., Shull, S., & Love, S. (2018).

Spacecraft Dormancy Autonomy Analysis for a Crewed Martian Mission (NASA/TM-2018-219965).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180005514

4. Rollock, A. E., & Klaus, D. M. (2022). Defining and Characterizing Self-Awareness and Self-

Sufficiency for Deep Space Habitats. Acta Astronautica, 198, 366-375.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.06.002

5. Dyke, S. J., Marais, K., Bilionis, I., Werfel, J., & Malla, R. (2021, March). Strategies for the Design and

Operation of Resilient Extraterrestrial Habitats. In Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2021 (Vol. 11591, p. 1159105), SPIE.

https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2585118

6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2024). Civil Space Shortfall Ranking.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/civil-space-shortfall-ranking-july-2024.pdf

T7.04: Lunar Surface Site Preparation (STTR)

Related Subtopic Pointers: Z-LIVE.05

Lead Center: KSC

Participating Center(s): GRC, MSFC

It is envisioned that early lunar infrastructure will include prepared surfaces composed of bulk regolith, rocks, and other surface treatments. The intent of this subtopic is to develop (1) civil engineering designs of lunar prepared surfaces infrastructure, (2) technologies to build the infrastructure, and (3) construction concepts of operations

(ConOps) for the south polar region of the Moon. Earth-based civil engineering materials, processes, and technologies are not adequate for lunar construction; therefore, lunar civil engineering designs and construction technologies must be developed. The fundamental robotic capabilities of interest are:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180003082 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180004123 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180005514 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2585118

• High resolution topography mapping.

• Rock removal.

• Establishment of grade and desired ground features.

• Compaction.

• Verification of design parameters and geometry of built structures.

• Surface treatments to mitigate dust, improve trafficability, and provide safe and stable operational areas.

• Routines and sensors for autonomous operations.

Scope Title: Surface Preparation and Bulk Regolith Infrastructure

The desired outcome of this effort is the robotic capability to build surfaces that reduce risk from hazards such as rocks, unlevel/unstable terrain, and dust, and to improve travel energy efficiency on the lunar surface. This includes engineered surface features/structures and the design, prototype, testing, analysis, modeling, and demonstration of prototype construction hardware and investigative instruments. These technologies are sought for initial ground demonstrations and follow-on sub-scaled lunar construction demonstration missions.

An example of this interest is Civil Space Shortfall 662: Robotic Regolith Manipulation and Site Preparation. The following lunar civil engineered structures are of particular interest to NASA. Proposers are welcome to suggest other regolith-based infrastructure concepts. Proposals targeting sintering and/or melting technologies to make regolith bricks/concrete are not of interest.

• Pathways for improved trafficability (e.g., gravel, stabilized paths, and foundations for roads).

• Flat, level, stable, and rock-free operational surfaces for regularly accessed locations such as habitat surroundings, equipment positioning locations, and dust mitigation applications.

• Sloped regolith access ramps to shadowed regions and elevated surfaces.

• Bulk regolith-based launch/landing zones designed to minimize risks associated with landing/launching on regolith surfaces for Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) and Human Landing System

(HLS) class vehicles.

• Rocket Plume Surface Interaction (PSI) ejecta and blast protection structures (e.g., berms).

• Foundations for supporting hardened launch/landing pads, towers, habitats, roads, and other structures.

• Layered regolith as shielding from Solar Particle Events (SPE), Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), nuclear system radiation, and meteoroid impacts.

• Structures for access to subgrade (e.g., trenches and pits).

• Utility corridors (e.g., electrical, communications, and fluids).

• Holistic designs of regolith-based infrastructure including interfaces between prepared areas (e.g., layout and transitions between infrastructure elements such as hardened launch/landing pad foundations, pad aprons, tower foundations, pathways/roads, habitat areas, and mining sites).

Other areas of significant interest include:

• Engineered surface treatments such as deployable surface covers and stabilizing agents to secure launch/landing pad surrounding areas (pad apron), improve surface conditions for vehicle traffic, control dust, and strengthen protective berms.

• Flame deflector design, analysis, simulation, and prototypes for HLS class landers that are intended to be brought from Earth and deployed on the Moon beneath landers to minimize plume surface interaction risks during the launch phase. Flame deflectors should be designed for single or multiple engine plumes and so they can eventually be constructed with in situ materials.

• Advanced geotechnical site investigation methods and systems, beyond cone penetrometer/shear vane measurements, that provide information on subsurface characteristics such as rock distributions, depth to bedrock, soil stratification, and caverns. This includes orbital remote sensing techniques such as

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) or surface-based technologies that include surface wave techniques, automated robotic bore hole investigations, and GPR, etc. Ground-based technologies should be suited for a small geotechnical mobility platform. A depth of at least 1 meter should be targeted with the potential to scale up.

Exact requirements for full-scale bulk regolith and prepared surfaces are not yet known. Assumptions and estimates should be included, with supporting rationale, to enable initial civil engineering designs. Specification of lunar civil engineering design criteria should be provided including required geotechnical properties.

Tests and validated models/simulations should be developed to characterize the system and regolith infrastructure performance in its intended environments/applications (for example, discrete element models of regolith behavior with compaction systems/processes).

ConOps should be developed to define the sequence of steps to complete construction tasks. ConOps should begin with the natural lunar surface including craters, hills, valleys, and surface/subsurface rocks, and end with the completed bulk regolith infrastructure verified to meet design criteria.

Concepts should be appropriate for a CLPS-scale demonstration mission on the lunar surface (e.g., <100 kg overall mass) and assume that the implements would attach to an existing modular mobility platform with interfaces at the forward and aft position. Mobility platforms are not a focus for this topic. A depiction of the integrated construction system concept should be provided.

Proposers may select one or more systems/structures of interest to develop. Infrastructure designs that maximize risk reduction for Artemis missions will be prioritized. Proposals that show promise for implementation by a single, compact, robotic regolith manipulation and surface preparation system will rank high. Concepts that employ or build upon higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL) systems will be prioritized. NASA is seeking systems that can build bulk regolith infrastructure that can be demonstrated by 2030.

Research institute partnering is anticipated to provide analytical, research, testing, and engineering support to proposers. Examples include (1) applying civil engineering principles and planning methods, (2) identifying and developing needed standards or specifications for lunar structures and operations, (3) modeling regolith interactions,

(4) developing analytical models and simulations for verifying system performance, and (5) developing methods for designing and prototyping hardware and associated software.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 2 to 5

• Level 1: TX 07 Exploration Destination Systems

• Level 2: TX 07.2 Mission Infrastructure, Sustainability, and Supportability

• Prototype

Phase I deliverables must include the design and test of critical attributes associated with the proposed site preparation technology, operations, and achieved site characteristics.