Back in March, a small aircraft in the UK lost engine power while coming in for a landing and crashed. The aircraft was a total loss, but thankfully, the pilot suffered only minor injuries. According to the recently released report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, we now know a failed 3D printed part is to blame.

The part in question is a plastic air induction elbow — a curved duct that forms part of the engine’s air intake system. The collapsed part you see in the image above had an air filter attached to its front (towards the left in the image), which had detached and fallen off. Heat from the engine caused the part to soften and collapse, which in turn greatly reduced intake airflow, and therefore available power.

While the cause of the incident is evident enough, there are still some unknowns regarding the part itself. The fact that it was 3D printed isn’t an issue. Additive manufacturing is used effectively in the aviation industry all the time, and it seems the owner of the aircraft purchased the part at an airshow in the USA with no reason to believe anything was awry. So what happened?

The part in question is normally made from laminated fiberglass and epoxy, with a glass transition of 84° C. Glass transition is the temperature at which a material begins to soften, and is usually far below the material’s actual melting point.

When a part is heated at or beyond its glass transition, it doesn’t melt but is no longer “solid” in the normal sense, and may not even be able to support its own weight. It’s the reason some folks pack parts in powdered salt to support them before annealing.

The printed part the owner purchased and installed was understood to be made from CF-ABS, or ABS with carbon fiber. ABS has a glass transition of around 100° C, which should have been plenty for this application. However, the investigation tested two samples taken from the failed part and measured the glass temperature at 52.8°C and 54.0°C, respectively. That’s a far cry from what was expected, and led to part failure from the heat of the engine.

The actual composition of the part in question has not been confirmed, but it sure seems likely that whatever it was made from, it wasn’t ABS. The Light Aircraft Association (LAA) plans to circulate an alert to inspectors regarding 3D printed parts, and the possibility they aren’t made from what they claim to be.

Called AVIRIS-5, it’s the latest in a long line of sensors pioneered by NASA JPL to survey Earth, the Moon, and other worlds.

Cradled in the nose of a high-altitude research airplane, a new NASA sensor has taken to the skies to help geoscientists map rocks hosting lithium and other critical minerals on Earth’s surface some 60,000 feet below. In collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the flights are part of the largest airborne campaign of its kind in the country’s history.

But that’s just one of many tasks that are on the horizon for AVIRIS-5, short for Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer-5, which has a lot in common with sensors used to explore other planets.

About the size of a microwave oven, AVIRIS-5 detects the spectral “fingerprints” of minerals and other compounds in reflected sunlight. Like its cousins flying in space, the sensor takes advantage of the fact that all kinds of molecules, from rare earth elements to flower pigments, have unique chemical structures that absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light.

The technology was pioneered at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California in the late 1970s. Over the decades, imaging spectrometers have visited every major rocky body in the solar system from Mercury to Pluto. They’ve traced Martian crust in full spectral detail, revealed lakes on Titan, and tracked mineral-rich dust across the Sahara and other deserts. One is en route to Europa, an ocean moon of Jupiter, to search for the chemical ingredients needed to support life.

Another imaging spectrometer, NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, was the first to discover water on the lunar surface in 2009. “That dataset continues to drive our investigations as we look for in situ resources on the Moon” as part of NASA’s Artemis campaign, said Robert Green, a senior research scientist at NASA JPL who’s contributed to multiple spectroscopy missions across the solar system.

Prisms, black silicon

While imaging spectrometers vary depending on their mission, they have certain hardware in common — including mirrors, detector arrays, and electron-beam gratings — designed to capture light shimmering off a surface and then separate it into its constituent colors, like a prism.

Many of the best-in-class imaging spectrometers flying today were made possible by components invented at NASA JPL’s Microdevices Laboratory. Instrument-makers there combine breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, and material science with the classical properties of light discovered by physicist Isaac Newton in the 17th century. Newton’s prism experiments revealed that visible light is composed of a rainbow of colors.

Today, NASA JPL engineers work with advanced materials such as black silicon — one of the darkest substances ever manufactured — to push performance. Under a powerful microscope, black silicon looks like a forest of spiky needles. Etched by lasers or chemicals, the nanoscale structures prevent stray light from interfering with the sample by trapping it in their spikes.

Treasure hunting

The optical techniques used at the Microdevices Laboratory have advanced continuously since the first AVIRIS instrument took flight in 1986. Four generations of these sensors have now hit the skies, analyzing erupting volcanoes, diseased crops, ground zero debris in New York City, and wildfires in Alabama, among many other deployments. The latest model, AVIRIS-5, features spatial resolution that’s twice as fine as that of its predecessor and can resolve areas ranging from less than a foot (30 centimeters) to about 30 feet (10 meters).

So far this year, it has logged more than 200 hours of high-altitude flights over Nevada, California, and other Western states as part of a project called GEMx (Geological Earth Mapping Experiment). The flights are conducted using NASA’s ER-2 aircraft, operated out of the agency’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California. The effort is the airborne component of a larger USGS initiative, called Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI), to modernize mapping of the nation’s surface and subsurface.

The NASA and USGS team has, since 2023, gathered data over more than 366,000 square miles (950,000 square kilometers) of the American West, where dry, treeless expanses are well suited to mineral spectroscopy. 

An exciting early finding is a lithium-bearing clay called hectorite, identified in the tailings of an abandoned mine in California, among other locations. Lithium is one of about 50 minerals at risk of supply chain disruption that USGS has deemed critical to national security and the economy.

Helping communities capture new value from old and abandoned prospects is one of the long-term aspirations of GEMx, said Dana Chadwick, an Earth system scientist at NASA JPL. So is identifying sources of acid mine drainage, which can occur when waste rocks weather and leach into the environment.

“The breadth of different questions you can take on with this technology is really exciting, from land management to snowpack water resources to wildfire risk,” Chadwick said. “Critical minerals are just the beginning for AVIRIS-5.”

More about GEMx

The GEMx research project is expected to last four years and is funded by the USGS Earth MRI, through investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The initiative will capitalize on both the technology developed by NASA for spectroscopic imaging, as well as the expertise in analyzing the datasets and extracting critical mineral information from them.

To learn more about GEMx visit:

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/gemx/

News Media Contacts

Andrew Wang / Andrew Good
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
626-379-6874 / 818-393-2433
andrew.wang@jpl.nasa.gov / andrew.c.good@jpl.nasa.gov

Written by Sally Younger

2025-136

💾

Have you ever wondered what goes into making it possible to use the restroom at 30,000 feet (10,000 m)? [Jason Torchinsky] at the Autopian recently gave us an interesting look at the history of the loftiest of loos.

The first airline toilets were little more than buckets behind a curtain, but eventually the joys of indoor plumbing took to the skies. Several interim solutions like relief tubes that sent waste out into the wild blue yonder or simple chemical toilets that held waste like a flying porta-potty predated actual flush toilets, however. Then, in the 1980s, commercial aircraft started getting vacuum-driven toilets that reduce the amount of water needed, and thus the weight of the system.

These vacuum-assisted aircraft toilets have PTFE-lined bowls that are rinsed with blue cleaning fluid that helps everything flow down the drain when you flush. The waste and fluid goes into a central waste tank that is emptied into a “honey truck” while at the airport. While “blue ice” falling from the sky happens on occasion, it is rare that the waste tanks leak and drop frozen excrement from the sky, which is a lot better than when the lavatory was a funnel and tube.

The longest ever flight used a much simpler toilet, and given the aerospace industry’s love of 3D printing, maybe a 3D printed toilet is what’s coming to an airplane lavatory near you?

After years of design, development, and testing, NASA’s X-59 quiet supersonic research aircraft took to the skies for the first time Oct. 28, marking a historic moment for the field of aeronautics research and the agency’s Quesst mission.

The X-59, designed to fly at supersonic speeds and reduce the sound of loud sonic booms to quieter sonic thumps, took off at 11:14 a.m. EDT and flew for 67 minutes. The flight represents a major step toward quiet supersonic flight over land.

“Once again, NASA and America are leading the way for the future of flight,” said acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy. “The X-59 is the first of its kind, and a major breakthrough in America’s push toward commercial air travel that’s both quiet and faster than ever before. Thanks to the X-59 team’s innovation and hard work, we’re revolutionizing air travel. This machine is a prime example of the kind of ingenuity and dedication America produces.”

Following a short taxi from contractor Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works facility, NASA X-59 test pilot Nils Larson approached U.S. Air Force Plant 42’s runway in Palmdale, California, where he completed final system checks and called the tower for clearance.

Then, with a deep breath, steady hands, and confidence in the labor of the X-59’s team, Larson advanced his throttle, picking up speed and beginning his climb – joining the few who have taken off in an experimental aircraft for the first time.

“All the training, all the planning that you’ve done prepares you,” Larson said. “And there is a time when you realize the weight of the moment. But then the mission takes over. The checklist starts. And it’s almost like you don’t even realize until it’s all over – it’s done.”

The X-59’s first flight went as planned, with the aircraft operating slower than the speed of sound at 230 mph and a maximum altitude of about 12,000 feet, conditions that allowed the team to conduct in-flight system and performance checks. As is typical for an experimental aircraft’s first flight, landing gear was kept down the entire time while the team focused on ensuring the aircraft’s airworthiness and safety.

The aircraft traveled north to Edwards Air Force Base, circled before landing, and taxied to its new home at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, officially marking the transition from ground testing to flight operations.

“In this industry, there’s nothing like a first flight,” said Brad Flick, center director of NASA Armstrong. “But there’s no recipe for how to fly an X-plane. You’ve got to figure it out, and adapt, and do the right thing, and make the right decisions.”

Historic flight

The X-59 is the centerpiece of NASA’s Quesst mission and its first flight connects with the agency’s roots of flying bold, experimental aircraft.

 “The X-59 is the first major, piloted X-plane NASA has built and flown in over 20 years – a unique, purpose-built aircraft,” said Bob Pearce, NASA associate administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. “This aircraft represents a validation of what NASA Aeronautics exists to do, which is to envision the future of flight and deliver it in ways that serve U.S. aviation and the public.”

NASA Armstrong has a long history of flying X-planes that pushed the edges of flight. In 1947, the X-1 broke the sound barrier. More than a decade later, the X-15 pushed speed and altitude to new extremes. Starting in the 1960s, the X-24 shaped how we understand re-entry from space, and in the 1980s the X-29 tested forward-swept wings that challenged aerodynamic limits.

Each of those aircraft helped answer a question about aeronautics. The X-59 continues that tradition with a mission focused on sound – reducing loud sonic booms to sonic thumps barely audible on the ground. The X-59 was built for one purpose: to prove that supersonic flight over land can be quiet enough for public acceptance.

Next steps

Getting off the ground was only the beginning for the X-59. The team is now preparing the aircraft for full flight testing, evaluating how it will handle and, eventually, how its design will shape shock waves, which typically result in a sonic boom, in supersonic flight. The X-59 will eventually reach its target cruising speed of about 925 mph (Mach 1.4) at 55,000 feet.

The aircraft’s design sits at the center of that testing, shaping and distributing shock-wave formation. Its engine is mounted on top of the fuselage – the main body of the aircraft – to redirect air flow upward and away from the ground.

The cockpit sits mid-fuselage, with no forward-facing window. Instead, NASA developed an eXternal Vision System – cameras and advanced high-definition displays that allow the pilot to see ahead and below the aircraft, which is particularly critical during landing.

These design choices reflect years of research and modeling – all focused on changing how the quieter sonic thump from a supersonic aircraft will be perceived by people on the ground.

NASA’s goal is to gather community response data to support the development of new standards for acceptable levels of sound from commercial supersonic flight over land. To do this, NASA will fly the X-59 over different U.S. communities, collecting ground measurement data and survey input from residents to better understand people’s perception of the X-59’s sonic thump.

“Most X-planes only live in the restricted airspace here on center,” Flick said. “This one is going to go out and fly around the country.”

When the X-59 lifted off the ground for the first time, it carried a piece of NASA’s history back into the air. And with it, a reminder that advancing aeronautics remains central to NASA’s mission.

💾

Interview transcript: 

Jared Serbu Don’t need to dig into all of the details that went into the source selection here, but if you could give me, just give our listeners a minute or two on this new platform and what makes it such a step forward from the platforms it’s replacing, that would that would help us out greatly for the rest of the conversation.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I could go ahead and give an industry perspective on that. And this is Ryan. So really back in the 2012, 2013 timeframe, we were looking to differentiate capability for the warfighter in terms of vertical lift capability by going twice as fast and twice as far. And a lot of that was under the future vertical lift program effort. And so we started with a demonstrator concept called the V-280 Valor. That really captured a lot of lessons learned from previous tilt rotor experience that Bell had, and it really leveraged that to fly a demonstrator in 2017, accumulate about 215 flight hours on it, and I think inform the Army on tilt rotor technology and requirements that could be met by that technology to support their eventual solicitation and down select of a tilt rotor for supporting the future long-range assault aircraft program.

Jared Serbu Great. Anything to add on that, Colonel?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, it’s very similar in that the Army was looking for something that provided transformational speed and range over the current Black Hawk fleet. And then additionally, the government really wanted the aircraft to be an open system. So the ability to upgrade the aircraft in the future quickly, cheaply, without necessarily having to go to any one particular vendor. So the open system is another key part of the platform.

Jared Serbu Got it. And so at this point looking forward, the ask from the Secretary, as I understand it, is to get a prototype up and running by next fiscal year, which is pretty ambitious. So talk us through a bit some of the key things that you’re going to be doing to meet that schedule.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, we’ve been laser focused on acceleration and getting a prototype out there next year. And so a lot of the work that we’ve been doing is taking the success that we had on the V-280 demonstrator, applying a lot of the items from that in terms of configuration and critical technologies, applying that to a design meeting the requirements for the future long range assault aircraft. And so what we’ve been working on with the government team is first and foremost establishing a foundation of an all digital design, incorporating using model-based systems engineering, but incorporating, as Jeff mentioned, the modular open systems approach. So a lot of the design work that we’ve been doing with the government to date has resulted in more than 90% of our engineering being released and a significant amount of work going on across the industrial base related to building hardware to support that first, and not just the first prototype, but the first six or eight prototypes that will be coming out of the program. But we’d look to complete that in early FY 27, that first prototype.

Jared Serbu Colonel, from the government side, what sorts of risks does that aggressive schedule potentially introduce for you, and what are some of the things that you’re looking to do to manage that?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, I think initially when we were asked to accelerate, our concern was, okay, if we start working now while we’re still in the middle of the design process, the chance is always there that we could end up building a prototype that doesn’t do what we need it to do. The reason why we’re okay with that and are willing to accept some of that risk is exactly for the reasons that Ryan mentioned. The V-280 demonstrator gives us a lot of confidence in tilt rotor technology. We know Bell knows how to do it. The open system is something that they’re fully on board with. And then the digital engineering and the digital environment provides the government a lot of insight into the design itself as it’s occurring. Other things that we’ve agreed to do was allowed Bell to pursue some commercial best practices when it comes to safety of flight on some of the early prototypes and being able to leverage FAA certifications instead of Army airworthiness certifications, while in the background we’ll continue to work Army airworthiness. So that is a little bit of an elevated risk, but one that the Army was willing to accept. Some of the digital engineering and technical deliverables, we’ve deferred the actual delivery of the items. However, what we’ve decided to do is really work together as an integrated team. So my team of a hundred or so engineers very often are down there out in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, working side by side along Bell engineers. So we have the insight of working along the way. Bell has the ability to ask questions and make adjustments and they get feedback very quickly, as opposed to maybe earlier it was about handing over technical deliverables for very thorough reviews. So we’ve kind of accelerated our review process, other things. The supply chain is always a concern and the Secretary asked us to leverage the Defense Production Act. So we are engaged with the Army and soon to be the Department of War on how we can potentially get some elevated priority on our program when it comes to the Defense Production Act.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I do think that approach is working well, and I do appreciate when people ask us the question about risk associated with acceleration because it gives us a chance to kind of walk through why I think we’re in a uniquely favorable position to accelerate. And part of it we talked about was the demonstrator and going 215 flight hours and all the data we were able to capture from that successful effort, but then also looking at the steps that we go through from early digital engineering and digital design where we have fly-throughs leveraging virtual reality and augmented reality. We bring the maintainers into that virtual environment and have them simulate maintenance of the aircraft very, very early in the design phase so that we don’t have discoveries, three, five, ten years later as we’re trying to sustain the platform. A lot of that gets baked in early. And then from the standpoint of getting to first flight and flight test activity, we spend a lot of time trying to get discoveries as early as possible in the process. And how we do that is by doing a lot of component-based testing, whether it’s fatigue testing, vibration testing, things of that nature at the component level. And then we integrate all of those components, aside from the structure, but all the systems, a pilot in the loop, all the software in a weapon systems integration lab. And we have that facility down in Arlington, Texas, and the pilot will fly a fully integrated set of systems on the ground for months and months and months, proving out the software and proving out the integration of these components before we ever step foot in an aircraft. So we get a lot of opportunity to reduce risk and learn these lessons early in the program before we’ve started making even some of those accelerated LRIP aircraft.

Jared Serbu Digital engineering’s come up a few times in the conversation so far, and I’m wondering if either or both of you want to give some concrete examples of some of the work that you’ve been able to do in that virtual world and save time that way versus things that, in a previous era, would have had to be done purely in a physical world.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, just to give a couple examples and then I’ll pass it to to Jeff. But I mentioned the maintainers, and being able to have maintainers, in some cases it’s veterans that we’ve brought over from the services into Bell that have done this for their first career and now they’re spending their second career, so to speak, making sure we get it right. But they actually have virtual, I’ll say tools and toolboxes, and they work to maintain that aircraft. And they’ll come to the engineering team after a test run and say, look, I had to remove three things to get to the part I was trying to fix, and it gives us an opportunity to fix that and make sure that number one, keep things from failing, but if something does fail, let’s make sure it fails in a benign way and in a way that we can replace it and repair it in the field and as easily as possible. And the digital engineering, and I think Jeff will probably touch on this, it is an investment. And it’s an investment early on that allows you to also take all these digital artifacts as kind of one source of truth and use them to support your tech pubs and your manuals, and again that sustainment and logistics tail that the aircraft will have for decades to come. But it all goes back to that initial investment in digital engineering and that single source of truth. And I’ll pass it to Jeff.

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, we’re really proud of the fact that this program was born digital. So we are clearly leading the way for defense acquisitions. We’re a digital engineering pathfinder for the department. Like Ryan said, I think there’s perhaps a misnomer out there that the investment in digital engineering somehow means that you get to go fast while you’re designing. And I always say, look, this is an investment in time. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are designing faster. What it means is when we complete the design and then build it, you can actually test faster because there’s a lot more that’s right with the aircraft. You’re a lot closer to what you wanted to get. The model-based systems engineering approach has allowed us and allowed Bell to really come up with a design that we’re very confident won’t miss any of the key requirements. In the past, it would be hard to know whether you were going to miss satisfying a requirement until you got to test. And then if it happened to be a big expensive miss during test, then you’re now iterating in the test environment. The goal was to really iterate in this digital and MDSE environment such that when you build the prototypes, you can have a test program that’s half as long as a traditional aircraft test program that has occurred in the past. So that’s really what we’re getting at. MDSE and digital engineering go hand in hand. My engineers can go right to their computer and workstations and look at the design in real time. And that has never been able to be done before when you do things the old way.

Jared Serbu On that requirements piece, I’d love to hear you both talk through a bit about the extent to which, if at all, requirements have needed to be changed in order to meet that go faster directive. And if the answer’s no, tell us a bit about why not.

Col. Jeffrey Poquette I’ll take that one. Look, this aircraft is made up of hundreds and hundreds of requirements and they’re tiered into different buckets. None of the most important requirements to include things that are deeply important to the Army, like MOSA, have had to be trade off. Might we have to trade some weight, take on a little bit of extra weight to include some provisions to ensure that the aircraft is truly modular and can handle the SOCOM variant and handle the medevac requirement? Might we have had to make those kinds of decisions? Absolutely. Are there certain things in the requirements document that are deep down in the in the requirement that might not be on the first aircraft? Probably. But that’s not what we’re seeking. We’re not seeking perfection. The Secretary and the Chief made it very clear. We’re not trying to get it absolutely perfect. What we need to do is deliver transformational capability. That’s what we mean when we talk about the speed and range twice as far, twice as fast, and the ability to handle the MOSA architecture and the open system. If we get that, we’re going to have a very, very good first iteration of the aircraft. And by the same token, the open systems architecture will allow us to go in and upgrade anything that needs upgrading. When you go faster, you might have to trade off requirements. We haven’t had any big decision event like that yet, but it is certainly something that we might have to think about in the future.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I would echo that. I think we’re very proud of where we’re looking relative to the requirements for the platform and the capability it will provide the warfighter. And I’ll just go back to the, I’ll say, head start we had relative to tilt rotor technology being being mature and giving us a good foundation to start with.

Jared Serbu Last thing here, and I don’t want to look too far down the road, but now’s the time to start thinking about these things obviously, and obviously you have been already thinking about sustainment, but specifically, what do things like that open systems architecture, having that engineering data, having all of that digital engineering data in hand, do for you, down the road when you get to a sustainment phase on a platform like this?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette I’ll take this one initially. So sustainment is one of the things we’ve been thinking about very early on in the program. When we went to our development decision, Milestone B, I would say nearly half of the very extensive and rigorous documentation we had to submit to the Army and the Department of War was focused on the lifecycle sustainment plan. So it’s very much a key element of the program. I would say one quarter of my office are logisticians that focus on things like training, on maintenance and that kind of thing. Ryan mentioned the digital environment, being able to look at the design through virtual means with virtual headsets or augmented reality, that kind of thing. That has given us the ability to provide feedback so we get it right the first time. And then having access to certain data rights allows the Army to write training so that the training meets the Army’s standards. It allows us to make decisions on what components we want to overhaul in the depot out there in Corpus Christi. Most importantly, I would say, is maintenance and ensuring that we have a good understanding about when parts will need to be replaced. I think all the work that Bell has done has allowed us to have a lot more insight into when components would need to be overhauled and replaced. Digital twins will be developed. So every tail number in the Army out there will have its own digital twin that will reside and can be accessed by my office so that if there is a problem in the field, my logisticians and former maintainers will be able to look at that digital twin and have a really good snapshot of what’s going on with the aircraft. And like Ryan said, it all comes down to having a single source of truth. In the past, documents would get shoveled over email, and eventually, inevitably, someone would end up with an out-of-date or not the current version of what you’re supposed to be looking at. This eliminates a lot of that churn, and I really see the sustainment of this aircraft is going to be a big part of why we call this aircraft affordable. As you know, sustainment, for the lifecycle of a program, we consider about 70% of the cost of the lifecycle of the program to be due to the sustainment phase. So it’s very important to us that we reduce those sustainment costs. And kind of final point here, you typically can estimate the sustainment burden of an aircraft based on its weight. And while the MV-75 isn’t especially light, it’s on the heavier side when you compare it to heavier lift aircraft like Chinook. We have a much, we’ve predicted through simulations and modeling that the sustainment is going to be much, much less than aircraft of its size and weight.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, I think that’s a good point. And I would just say from an industry standpoint, programmatically and I’ll even say culturally, we’ve approached this clean sheet development in a different way that I think provides a lot more tools for the user, for the Army to maintain this long term. And some of the things that Jeff mentioned related to the correlation between weight and maintenance cost or weight and cost in general. I’d like to think we’re breaking some of those cost curves with this because of a lot of the tools that we’ve used, and quite frankly because of some of the newer technologies that are available today that weren’t available when some of the currently fielded aircraft were developed.

The post Can digital engineering cut a decade-long test program in half? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Recent airborne science flights to Greenland are improving NASA’s understanding of space weather by measuring radiation exposure to air travelers and validating global radiation maps used in flight path planning. This unique data also has value beyond the Earth as a celestial roadmap for using the same instrumentation to monitor radiation levels for travelers entering Mars’ atmosphere and for upcoming lunar exploration.

NASA’s Space Weather Aviation Radiation (SWXRAD) aircraft flight campaign took place August 25-28 and conducted two five-hour flights in Nuuk, Greenland. Based out of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, the mission gathered dosimetry measurements, or the radiation dose level, to air travelers from cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation is caused by high-energy particles from outer space that originate from our Sun during eruptive events like solar flares and from events farther away, like supernovae in our Milky Way galaxy and beyond.

“With NASA spacecraft and astronauts exploring the Moon, Mars, and beyond, we support critical research to understand – and ultimately predict – the impacts of space weather across the solar system,” said Jamie Favors, director of NASA’s Space Weather Program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Though this project is focused on aviation applications on Earth, NAIRAS could be part of the next generation of tools supporting Artemis missions to the Moon and eventually human missions to Mars.”

NASA’s Nowcast of Aerospace Ionizing Radiation System, or NAIRAS, is the modeling system being enhanced by the SWXRAD airborne science flights. The model features real-time global maps of the hazardous radiation in the atmosphere and creates exposure predictions for aircraft and spacecraft.

“The radiation exposure is maximum at the poles and minimum at the equator because of the effect of Earth’s magnetic field. In the polar regions, the magnetic field lines are directed into or out of the Earth, so there’s no deflection or shielding by the fields of the radiation environment that you see everywhere else.” explained Chris Mertens, principal investigator of SWXRAD at NASA Langley. “Greenland is a region where the shielding of cosmic radiation by Earth’s magnetic field is zero.”

That means flight crews and travelers on polar flights from the U.S. to Asia or from the U.S. to Europe are exposed to higher levels of radiation.

The data gathered in Greenland will be compared to the NAIRAS modeling, which bases its computation on sources around the globe that include neutron monitors and instruments that measure solar wind parameters and the magnetic field along with spaceborne data from instruments like the NOAA GOES series of satellites.

“If the new data doesn’t agree, we have to go back and look at why that is,” said Mertens. “In the radiation environment, one of the biggest uncertainties is the effect of Earth’s magnetic field. So, this mission eliminates that variable in the model and enables us to concentrate on other areas, like characterizing the particles that are coming in from space into the atmosphere, and then the transport and interactions with the atmosphere.”

The SWXRAD science team flew aboard NASA’s B200 King Air with five researchers and crew members. In the coming months, the team will focus on measurement data quality checks, quantitative modeling comparisons, and a validation study between current NAIRAS data and the new aircraft dosimeter measurements.

All of this information is endeavoring to protect pilots and passengers on Earth from the health risks associated with radiation exposure while using NASA’s existing science capabilities to safely bring astronauts to the Moon and Mars.

“Once you get to Mars and even the transit out to Mars, there would be times where we don’t have any data sets to really understand what the environment is out there,” said Favors. “So we’re starting to think about not only how do we get ready for those humans on Mars, but also what data do we need to bring with them? So we’re feeding this data into models exactly like NAIRAS. This model is thinking about Mars in the same way it’s thinking about Earth.”

The SWXRAD flight mission is funded through NASA’s Science Mission Directorate Heliophysics Division. NASA’s Space Weather Program Office is hosted at NASA Langley and facilitates researchers in the creation of new tools to predict space weather and to understand space weather effects on Earth’s infrastructure, technology, and society.

For more information on NASA Heliophysics and NAIRAS modeling visit:

NASA Space Weather

NASA’s Nowcast of Aerospace Ionizing Radiation System