JSC Capabilities TIM All Questions and Topics.pdf

P a g e | 1

NASA JSC Capabilities TIM held Sept. 11-12, 2025.

All JSC Capabilities TIM Topics, with Written I/O Tool Questions

The responses to the JSC Capabilities TIM (virtual) Q&A tool (also known as the I/O tool) are captured below to the maximum extent as possible. Please contact the JSC Partnership POC for further information.

[Responses prepared and provided by the TIM’s Topic Presenters.]

NOTE – The Q&A below supplements the Content of the Charts that were presented at the JSC Capabilities TIM (as posted on SAM.gov https://sam.gov/opp/5a5949066216495491aedb31fb17c402/view ).

Acronyms used in the Q&A are defined in the Topic Charts.

Legend: Questions in boldface text; Responses in plain text.

Fire Emergency Response Equipment

1) Does the AGA have issues with detecting combustion products if it ingests smoke particulates at the same time?

The recommended ConOps for use of AGA is to detect combustion products during cabin air clean up post fire. AGA is not used for active fire detection. Smoke particulates can be a problem if enough are ingested, but we have not seen adverse effects from smoke particulates in testing.

2) Please describe the time frame and specifications to expect for charging AGA batteries.

AGA batteries are Canon BP-975.

3) Why did ISS stop using the CBA and Fire Cartridges?

ISS has only stopped using the emergency mask. The emergency mask on ISS was a secondary and tertiary response for fire.

4) Did you say the AGA uses an external sample pump? Could you tell us a little about that sample pump?

There is a pump for AGA to use if you are trying to detect combustion products in a fire port, otherwise the AGA pulls air from the environment that it is in.

5) Please discuss the crew training expectations for these contingency items, would NASA offer crew training with GFE?

Typically Engineering Development Units (EDUs) are provided for familiarity and training purposes. There are documents and expertise that could also be discussed for training purposes.

6) Why does the AGA take 2-5 years to build and certify if majority of components are COTS?

Procurement of COTS electronics, boards, documentation from build, and acceptance testing of the device is around 2 years from authorization to proceed if the same part number is purchased. There is room to reduce testing and minimize the schedule.

7) What is your approach to providing this hardware - GFE, licensing, existing 3rd party that already manufactures the hardware, other?

NASA has provided the PFE, AGA and CBA as GFE for past human spaceflight (HSF) programs.

P a g e | 2

8) Will both LEO and beyond-LEO (Artemis) programs use the PFE, as a common form of fire extinguisher? ...or would LEO and Artemis versions need to be very different.

Right now, only Artemis programs are using the PFE discussed. ISS has other PFEs that are used but cannot be reproduced in the same manner. The PFE is also meant for large open cabin fires without the ability to fight fires beyond racks.

9) Are there any NASA plans to monitor other combustion products in addition to CO, HCN, HCL, and HF?

For devices provided by NASA, these are the constituents that are monitored. The technology has the capability to monitor other species using different wavelength lasers, but that has not yet been requested.

10) Are there versions of the PFE that are larger or smaller (+/- 30% or so)? ....or is that one the only size/parameters that are available?

There is currently only one size, but the manner of construction should be scalable.

11) Does the PFE operate differently in lunar gravity versus in Zero-G?

Given pressure is the primary means for delivering water from a bladder, the effects in microG vs lunar gravity should be negligible to the functioning of the device.

P a g e | 3

Toilet Systems

Key Acronyms: LOO = Lavatory on Orbit)

1) What materials are used for the RWB/Urine Bag?

Urine bag material is proprietary (to vendor), so NASA cannot share this information.

The RWB is a Nomex bag with vent cutouts in the lower half that are covered with 5-micron hydrophobic PTFE material (same material as single-use fecal bags) to allow airflow to pass through.

a. How are those bags, when full of waste, stored post-use?

Once full, the RWB/Urine bag is removed from Toilet Assembly and placed in an Odor

Control Bag and disposed of in the vehicle wet trash.

b. Are they storable without any other levels of containment, or do they need to be placed into another hard-sided waste container?

The bags once full require another level of containment which is the Odor Control Bags.

Once contained in this bag the full bags are placed in the vehicle wet trash.

c. Are urine bags emptied into a separate tank?

No; the primary Toilet Assembly urine bags are not emptied. They will be bagged and stored in wet trash in the vehicle.

2) Changeout frequencies are based upon how many crew members utilizing the system?

Urine bag was sized to meet project requirement for changeout every 2 days.

RWB was sized to meet project requirement to hold a minimum of 10 deposits per RWB before changeout.

3) For science objectives how does the system support fecal and urine sample collection?

The project does not have requirements to allow for fecal and urine sample collection, so the system is NOT designed to allow for this function.

4) What is the urine stabilizing agent used? Is it different for nominal toilet use and when using the BUS?

Oxone will be used as the stabilizer (same as used on Orion and Shuttle programs)

5) You mentioned using the prototype for crew evaluation/assessment - any feedback you can share so far?

Overall, the crew has provided beneficial feedback since the start of the project that has influenced the design to this point.

In general, the crew likes the simplicity of the hardware, especially the Artemis Bag wall mount and the ability to use the seat in multiple configurations.

There is an overall acceptance of the design features shown to date; they appreciate the ability to easily clean the hardware, simple function to turn on Toilet Assembly (open lid, pull out hose), easy to access/use hardware, and such.

6) Please discuss the life cycle of the LOO, weekly servicing, long term maintenance There is no weekly servicing or long-term maintenance currently planned.

At the start of the mission, crew will install the odor filter. Current LOO design is to have the filter last entire length of mission (~10 days).

Crew will only have to do regular cleanup after use and changeout of urine bag, RWB, and fecal bag once bags are full/used.

P a g e | 4

7) What chemicals are used to clean the LOO?

Cleaning agents have been specified by the vehicle provider and include the following 4 items: wet wipes, dry wipes, anti-fungal wipes, and wet wipes.

8) Can you comment on the differences in the hardware between Zero-G and Lunar-G?

The same hardware will be used in zero-g and lunar-g. The LOO system overall is being designed to support both environments.

a. Which one is simpler, cheaper, easier to build and qualify?

Lunar gravity will make overall operations for the crew easier from a collection standpoint.

Airflow is being provided to assist in zero-g for waste separation from the body as well as overall odor control in both environments.

b. How similar or different are they?

The same hardware will be used in both gravity environments.

9) How would the LOO change for a 15 yr mission certification?

The LOO is currently being designed for 1 mission for about ~10 days. For a 15 year certification, project would have to look at longer life cycle testing, sparing, additional consumables/resupply, maintenance activities, among other aspects.

10) What is the mechanism for gas/liquid separation of the urine?

This is proprietary information and cannot be shared.

11) Please share more info about the urine recycling capability that you have.

The LOO system does not recycle urine.

12) Do you have published conference papers about your hardware?

a. Yes – paper published in 2023 on the crew evaluations and results for the LOO system (see link below)

13) Can you please provide that [conference] paper citation for us?

Borrego, M., Walker, M., et al., “Evolution of the Next Exploration Toilet through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing,” 2023 International Conference on Environmental Systems, Calgary, Canada, July 2023 (document is downloadable).

Provided earlier in the TIM Teams chat: https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/6928578b-ec21-4b84-a236-29d05c8d54e4

P a g e | 5

Cold Stowage

1) What PFE[sic] system is required to accompany the different cold stowage systems?

Assuming the question is related to PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), we have several different items. For -100 C to 0 C we have light weight cryo gloves. For temperatures colder than -100 C, the crew has to use the big blue cryo gloves.

2) How has the reliability been of the different system options? Have there been failures or temp control issues?

i. We have had numerous failures associated with MELFI; however, all MELFI failures have been tied to a bad batch of resistors in one replaceable component and were recoverable via on-board R&R (Remove and Replace spares).

ii. There have been 2 failures of Glacier, several failures with MERLIN (disk failure and degraded thermoelectric banks), and 1-2 Polar failures. Due to our redundancy, none of the failures have resulted in loss of science.

3) Is NASA able to provide start to finish support services for cold storage missions?

Yes, with appropriated funding/agreements in place.

4) Which systems are thermoelectric vs using refrigerants such as Freon? Toxicity or leak concerns?

MERLIN and FRIDGE are thermoelectric, the rest use a Stirling cycle engine. The cooling liquid is Helium and is not a concern for leak or toxicity.

5) Is the temperature monitored during launch and return for passively cooled payloads? How?

Partially. We have temperature data loggers we place inside passive assets that are above freezing temperatures. The data is not retrievable until the data logger is returned. We do not have data loggers that are compatible with temperatures below -20 C.

6) Are any of these cold storage options sensitive to power quality issues? Need special circuit protection, grounding/bonding/isolation? Start-up power transients? Do any of these systems vibrate significantly during nominal operation?

Regarding power, Polar, Glacier and Iceberg have a start-up transient. This does not require current vehicles to provide special circuit protection. The units do require bonding and grounding mechanism be provided by the vehicle.

Regarding vibration, we have chosen not to put Glacier on a crewed flight due to crew comments during a previous return. That being said, on ISS it does not seem to be an issue, as the configuration of the vibration isolation system is a “free float” state vs being locked down on launch and return. Polar, Glacier, and Iceberg have acoustics exceptions.

7) I figure that passive cold stowage is very inefficient in terms of that it adds a large amount of mass and volume during transport (and for preparation in the freezer). Nevertheless, passive cold stowage seems to be largely employed. Why is that?

Power and powered locations are limited on visiting vehicles, so passive assets are used for science that can tolerate the ranges our Ice Bricks/Double Coldbag can provide.

Powered assets are typically reserved for science that has a no warmer than -68 C temperature requirement, or a tight tolerance at +37 C. That being said, we have used Polars to launch and return +4 and +10 C science as well.

P a g e | 6

Exercise Systems

1) At the end of your talk can you recap what major updates have been made (if any) to the devices in your chart? ARED, CEVIS, T2.

ARED:

i. VIS Dashpots: Issues arose with the ARED dashpots soon after installation on ISS, and during Life Cycle Testing on the ground. They were redesigned to eliminate a joint that had separated, increase the piston and cylinder size, and alter the endcap to fully cover the edge of the glass cylinder.

ii. Upper Stop Cable (USC) Cover: The USCs on ARED have a higher failure rate on-orbit than on the ground. It is thought that this is due to ARED’s proximity to stowage on ISS, and that crew or stowage may be inadvertently impacting the USCs. Clear covers were designed to go over the USCs to protect them from impacts, while remaining visible to crew.

iii. Belt Pulley Retainers: When the ARED Cable Arms fall out of the detents, slack in the Cable Arm Ropes can cause the ropes to come off the pulleys. If not noticed, this can cause the belt pulley to slip and become misaligned. Retainers were designed and flown that cover the pulley, keeping the rope in the grooves, even when excessive slack is present.

iv. Exercise Instrumentation Box: The original ARED Instrumentation Box and associated ARED Flight Software contained old technology making it incompatible with current USB connections and operating systems. The new Exercise Instrumentation Box utilizes software running on a Surface Pro tablet and collects data at a significantly higher frequency.

CEVIS:

i. CEVIS Seat Cushion: After reports of the CEVIS Seat cushion not drying in between sessions, the seat back was redesigned to be made of a material that was nonporous, and could be wiped down in between sessions, keeping it dry and clean.

ii. Mass for Stabilization: Original CEVIS used throwmasses that were attached to the ergometer and moved by a drive rod to stabilize the system. After an on-orbit failure where the drive rod was no longer moving the masses, crew reported that CEVIS still felt stable. When CEVIS was replaced with Teal CEVIS, no moving throwmasses were used, but stationary ballast masses were placed in the pockets of the frame.

This was analyzed prior to flight and confirmed using crew feedback and on-orbit data.

T2:

i. Power Avionics Unit (PAU): The original PAU was redesigned to fix a voltage ripple in the DC/DC converter that lead to a failure of the channel that powers the T2 motor, and to secure components better to prevent arcing.

ii. Glenn Harness: The strap design was updated to better distribute the load from the Bungees. Also, the chest and shoulder straps and buckles were redesigned to prevent degradation of the straps near the buckles.

iii. Snubber Cups: The snubber cups are lined with a rubbery material and help dampen the loads from the treadmill into structure. They are changed out when they are worn 50% down- however this was left to crew discretion. These liners

P a g e | 7 were redesigned to be dual colored, so that when they reach 50% wear, orange is visible, making it clear that changeout is needed.

2) Is there already a VIS that could easily be attached to the Orion Flywheel instead of directly to the vehicle or would a new effort be required to develop one?

New development would be required because the VIS is specific to the device, and the vehicle. Existing VIS systems may be applicable, but modifications would be needed.

3) Does JSC Engineering have validated analysis models that can be used to estimate sizing of

VIS? If so, are they generic or flexible enough to be used for non-ISS destinations?

The forcing functions from the device and the vehicle constraints can be used to estimate the VIS parameters (mass, stiffness, damping) that drive the VIS design.

Here are links to 2 white papers from publicly available sources.

i. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240007911

ii. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10115861

The first describes the assessment of exercise loads into the HALO module. Similar methods could be applied to a future vehicle. The second describes the end-to-end process of modeling, simulation, and analysis used to inform the mechanical design of a VIS system.

4) Will the larger systems fit through an IDSS hatch?

IDSS hatch is 800mm (~31.5”).

i. ARED and T2 do not fit through this hatch fully assembled- they would need to be flown in multiple subassemblies and assembled once through the hatch.

ii. CEVIS, Flywheel, MED2 all would fit through.

5) Is it necessary to do Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) zero gravity testing of these exercise devices?

That is, for the CMS items.

Testing is important, and there are a lot of tests that can be done in 1G. There are benefits to understanding how the combined system of the hardware and the user interact in microgravity. This can be accomplished in Parabolic Flights, or on a gravity offloader like ARGOS at JSC Bldg. 9 North.

6) Post HIIT exercise, is it reasonable to assume a large amount of liquid sweat is left over on equipment or crew clothing?

Crew have often reported that softgoods components are wet after exercise and will place these items in high airflow areas to dry them off after exercising. If it is something that crew is sharing, i.e. seat back for a bike, consider material choices that can be wiped down, that are less likely to absorb sweat.

If so, does this sweat evaporate within 15 minutes following, or does it take a longer to evaporate and the humidity to come down, say an hour or longer?

This is very dependent on the size of the vehicle/size of the ECLSS system. In a smaller vehicle like Orion, there are constraints on session scheduling to allow for the cabin humidity to come down.

P a g e | 8

Vehicle Systems Manager

1) Can you point us to publications/white papers describing the details of the fault management and prognosis capabilities?

Aaseng, Sweet, Ossenfort, “Performance Analysis of an Autonomous Fault Management

System,” AIAA 2018-5149, AIAA Space and Astronautics Forum, 17-19 Sept. 2018.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-5149

Aaseng, et al., “Development and Testing of a Vehicle Management System for Autonomous Spacecraft Habitat Operations,” AIAA Space and Astronautics Forum, 15 Sept. 2018.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-5148

2) I noticed [all] these charts were not at the same place as the other charts for this TIM, where can I find these charts?

Charts were posted/re-posted as appropriate.

3) You mentioned a [Matlab] Simulink interface for cFS. Do you incorporate auto-generated code from Simulink/Stateflow?

Yes, in prior NASA project flights we incorporated auto-generated code Matlab/Simulink models into CFS applications.

P a g e | 9

Modular IVA/EVA Battery

1) Is there a link on the Front-door portal that links to the battery and power testing capabilities at JSC? Can you provide it please.

• Yes. See https://www.nasa.gov/reference/jsc-power-subsystems for description of all power subsystem capabilities. This is a publicly available website.

2) Is the Firebag a COTS item or custom designed by the NASA team?

• Firebags are limited to 175 Watt-hours; this 175Wh was also chosen to take in account the variability in packaging used by COTS batteries which would add to the gases generated.

The existing ISS fire bag is a modified COTS item that is only certified for use on ISS environments and limited to 275 watt-hours for that application.

• Additional information: We are in the planning phase for testing their performance in relevant Human Landing System (HLS) environments.

3) In JSC 20793 there's a callout to confirm single batch lot numbers of the lithium batteries itself including COTS devices such as laptops / tablets. How do you request this information from COTS OEM manufacturers? There are known vendors who will not provide this information.

• We have found that OEMs that are interested publicize the fact their product is being used by NASA, on ISS, and such. We have also found that reaching their technical departments focused on safety and transportation yields good results. Finally, NASA JSC established relationships with some OEMs that we continue to leverage.

• Additional information:

i. KSC recognizes that not all COTS OEM manufacturers and/or vendors will provide this information, either because they do not track it, or they are unwilling to provide batteries with lot traceability. However, there are others that do and are very interested in providing a single lot of batteries needed for flight/testing.

ii. Additionally, cell lot control can be achieved by verifying that the lot at the top-level assembly is from a single batch lot number through physical examination of a sample set of COTS devices. This set is used for safety testing where some units are disassembled and examined to ensure the cells are from the same vendor and that the lot codes match, if present. If not present, then visual comparisons are performed for the assessment with the potential for additional testing to verify uniformity of the battery and its electronics (i.e., battery management system, charger) since some COTS devices have been found to use multiple vendors/designs under the same top-level piece part. If any manufacturing and/or testing inconsistencies are observed, the entire lot is rejected.

4) What are the [primary] risk drivers that cause longer schedule times for any of those devices?

• For electronic power systems, radiation requirements for electronic components and requirement verification of safety-critical software. For batteries, initial cell selection and cell screening.

• Additional information:

o For electronic power systems, e.g., power supplies, battery chargers, etc., there are two primary risk drivers: requirements that drive use of radiation tolerant or radiation hard components and safety-critical software.

P a g e | 10

The former tend to have long lead times which leads to designing with non-radiation hardened assurance (RHA) EEE parts for prototyping and engineering units. On occasion, the RHA EEE parts have different performance specifications which result in additional evaluation after a design is expected to be mature, leading to schedule risk.

The latter tends to be more process driven with additional/specified required verifications.

o For batteries, the identification of a cell that will meet the performance specifications of the end-item is a non-trivial effort, including cell lot screening.

However, this can be mitigated by using pre-screened cells, e.g., using a cell in the NASA strategic reserve.

5) Does JSC offer battery virtual cell monitoring systems?

• Yes.

• Additional information:

o The Power Systems Branch in JSC Engineering Directorate has developed and overseen the development of multiple battery management systems, including battery chargers, that are modular, scalable, and appropriate to the interfacing battery that include cell monitoring as desired/appropriate.

Did you mention the Battery standard, and whether the devices meet that standard? (For the IVA/EVA batteries that you talked about.)

• Yes, the GFP modular battery meets the current version of JSC-20793 (i.e. Rev. D).

6) Any major differences between Rev D and Rev E of the Battery standard?

• Note that JSC -20793 Revision E is still in development and hence not yet published.

Overall, it is very similar to Revision D. There are changes regarding propagation requirements as we have accumulated significantly more insight on the subject since Revision D was released.

7) For Gateway, Orion, and future vehicles is the plan to transition to USB-C to interface with powering devices to minimize variability of connectors?

• No; as of today, there are no official requirements that drive the use of USB-C as a power interface from the vehicle to devices, aka Electrical Power Consuming Equipment (EPCE).

• Additional information:

o There is community acknowledgment that each vehicle/program having their own interface is a challenge to having EPCE that operates in more than one, ideally all, vehicles as well as leading to multiple power interfaces in each vehicle. However, a capability is near completion for Orion. Other programs have expressed interest in the standard due to the EPCE that they’d like to use. This can result in addressing the desire to minimize variability of connectors, or more generally, the power interface. The expectation is that, having USB-C with Power Delivery capability onboard will naturally lead hardware developers to utilize the interface for payloads.

A side benefit is that it could minimize the need for cargo that performs the same function, such as DC-DC converters or standalone battery chargers.

P a g e | 11

8) Would you prefer a large vehicle battery be inside or outside the cabin? Why? Considerations?

• There is no fundamental preference, but various considerations/dependencies lead to the vehicle battery being external to the vehicle. These considerations include:

i. Consider the hazards associated with cell venting and how the vehicle ECLSS system can handle an event,

ii. Consider the thermal management required to maintain operational and safe control of the battery,

iii. Consider voltage levels that could be exposed during venting and outgassing since voltages as low as 40V could pose secondary arcing or Corona events which would require additional mitigation.

• Additional information:

o Small cell batteries may be an option for IVA (inside the cabin) but large cell batteries must be EVA (outside the cabin). The rationale is that even a single large cell can overwhelm the vehicle ECLSS and its SMAC limits – including for vehicles with a large habitable cabin. Another consideration are environmental concerns for the battery. For example, the wide temperature range expected for an EVA battery could be quite cumbersome, depending on location. Ultimately, it is a system-level trade-off.