Results for “Uncrewed” — Page 10

DOE OSTI2022

Orthoimagery and Shapefiles Documenting Pre- and Post-August 2019 Slope Disturbances, Teller Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018-2019

This dataset was derived from UAS aerial photos and dGPS data collected at the Teller mile marker 47 site in 2018 and 2019 and used to support research quantifying the timing and rate of surface movements and analyze soil transport process in Arctic landscapes. In July 2018, a Phantom uncrewed aerial system (UAS) collected >6800 high resolution aerial photos of the lower portion of the Teller 47 watershed (see for raw photos; pending archive NGA281). During the UAS survey, 25 x 25 cm tile ground control points (GCPs) were laid out and secured with one rebar rod in the center. The four corners and rebar tops were surveyed with differential GPS, and these coordinates were used to construct and validate an orthomosaic of the site. These points were resurveyed in August 2019 and used to track annual movement. Changes in position between the two surveys are reported in (Lathrop et al. 2022; NGA254). Agisoft Metashape photogrammetry software was used to construct a georeferenced orthomosaic image (*.tif file) of a portion (0.68 km2) of the watershed with a final resolution of ~1 cm. Manual delineation of the perimeters of failures visible in the UAS imagery (*.tif files) was conducted to create shapefile polygons (two *.zip files). The failures were identified by the exposure of bare mineral soils, which were made visible by disruption of the overlying tundra vegetation. The shapefiles were then used to analyse the topographic distribution and sizes of the failures. In August 2019 an additional ~300 georeferenced UAS images of slope instability features were collected (data pending submission) and compared with the 2018 orthomosaic. Overview maps of the failure locations included as a *.pdf.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2004

Performance as Promised: How the Chandra X-ray Observatory Accomplished One of Nasa's Most Challenging Missions for Billions of Dollars Less than Originally Planned

As the nation looks toward bold new ventures in space, the Chandra X-ray Observatory program offers an example of how billion-dollar missions can be successfully developed within tightening fiscal constraints. Chandra experienced many of challenges facing bold space programs (state-of-the-art technical requirements and budget-induced slips and restructurings), and yet the Chandra team achieved nearly all the originally envisioned performance for dramatically lower cost. This was accomplished by a combination of team- work, systems engineering, advanced technology insertion, and effective approaches for program implementation. A thorough tradeoff of science utility vs. cost led to the selection of a highly elliptical orbit with uncrewed robotic delivery, deployment, and maintenance. Progressive, focused technology demonstrations were accomplished prior to commitment of major resources to critical elements of the system design, such as the high resolution mirror assembly (HRMA). Pathfinder hardware was developed to reduce risks. A variety of schedule risk reduction measures were implemented and resulted in the X-ray calibration taking place exactly within five days of its originally planned date after after five years of development. The team worked together in an effective manner to contain requirements creep. reductions such as the ACIS-2 chip device. It is estimated that the above combination of measures achieved the avoidance of over $4B in costs, while enabling a highly successful mission.

Davidson, Greg↗

NASA NTRS2005

Rendezvous and Docking for Space Exploration

To achieve the exploration goals, new approaches to exploration are being envisioned that include robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants and in-space assembly in Earth orbit, Lunar orbit and other locations around the cosmos. A fundamental requirement for rendezvous and docking to accomplish in-space assembly exists in each of these locations. While existing systems and technologies can accomplish rendezvous and docking in low earth orbit, and rendezvous and docking with crewed systems has been successfully accomplished in low lunar orbit, our capability must extend toward autonomous rendezvous and docking. To meet the needs of the exploration vision in-space assembly requiring both crewed and uncrewed vehicles will be an integral part of the exploration architecture. This paper focuses on the intelligent application of autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies to meet the needs of that architecture. It also describes key technology investments that will increase the exploration program's ability to ensure mission success, regardless of whether the rendezvous are fully automated or have humans in the loop.

Machula, M. F.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Mitchell, J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Orion GN and C Overview and Architecture

The Crew Exploration Vehicle, named Orion, is a critical element in the Constellation Program to develop the transportation system needed to send humans back to the moon and then beyond. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the Orion spacecraft, which is managed by the Johnson Space Center. The Orion GN&C sub-system is being jointly developed by NASA and Lockheed Martin through a mode team approach. The GN&C is a critical element of the Orion mission to carry astronauts to low earth orbit to service the International Space Station and then on later flights to transfer and return a crew of four to the moon. The Orion GN&C system must perform monitoring and abort functions during ascent, rendezvous and docking in both low earth and lunar orbits, perform uncrewed lunar loiter operations, perform trans earth injection and atmospheric entry and landing. The Orion also must be integrated with the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, the Earth Departure Stage of the Ares V and the Lunar Surface Access Module. This paper provides an overview of the Orion GN&C system. The functional capabilities of the Orion GN&C will be provided in the context of Constellation architecture, the key GN&C requirements will be summarized, the GN&C architecture will be presented, the development schedule and plans will summarized and finally conclusions will be presented.

Hu, Howard↗

NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, (AR&D).) The crewed versions of the spacecraft may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Howard, Richard T.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Docking Simulation and Testing with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree of Freedom Dynamic Test System

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Constellation Program; this is carried as one of the CEV Project top risks. The Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation. One of the project activities is a series of "pathfinder" testing and simulation activities to integrate relative navigation sensors with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree-of-Freedom Test System (SDTS). The SDTS will be the primary testing location for the Orion spacecraft s Low Impact Docking System (LIDS). Project team members have integrated the Orion simulation with the SDTS computer system so that real-time closed loop testing can be performed with relative navigation sensors and the docking system in the loop during docking and undocking scenarios. Two relative navigation sensors are being used as part of a "pathfinder" activity in order to pave the way for future testing with the actual Orion sensors. This paper describes the test configuration and test results.

Mitchell, Jennifer D.↗

NASA NTRS2008

A Testbed for Evaluating Lunar Habitat Autonomy Architectures

A lunar outpost will involve a habitat with an integrated set of hardware and software that will maintain a safe environment for human activities. There is a desire for a paradigm shift whereby crew will be the primary mission operators, not ground controllers. There will also be significant periods when the outpost is uncrewed. This will require that significant automation software be resident in the habitat to maintain all system functions and respond to faults. JSC is developing a testbed to allow for early testing and evaluation of different autonomy architectures. This will allow evaluation of different software configurations in order to: 1) understand different operational concepts; 2) assess the impact of failures and perturbations on the system; and 3) mitigate software and hardware integration risks. The testbed will provide an environment in which habitat hardware simulations can interact with autonomous control software. Faults can be injected into the simulations and different mission scenarios can be scripted. The testbed allows for logging, replaying and re-initializing mission scenarios. An initial testbed configuration has been developed by combining an existing life support simulation and an existing simulation of the space station power distribution system. Results from this initial configuration will be presented along with suggested requirements and designs for the incremental development of a more sophisticated lunar habitat testbed.

Lawler, Dennis G.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Technical Progress on the Ares I-X Flight Test

Ares I-X will be NASA's first test flight for a new human-rated launch vehicle since 1981, and the team is well on its way toward completing the vehicle's design and hardware fabrication for an April 2009 launch. This uncrewed suborbital development test flight gives NASA its first opportunities to: gather critical data about the flight dynamics of the integrated launch vehicle; understand how to control its roll during flight; better characterize the stage separation environments during future flight; and demonstrate the first stage recovery system. The Ares I-X Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) incorporates a mix of flight and mockup hardware. It is powered by a four-segment solid rocket booster, and will be modified to include a fifth, spacer segment; the upper stage, Orion crew exploration vehicle, and launch abort system are simulator hardware to make the FTV aerodynamically similar to the same size, shape, and weight of Ares I. The Ares IX first stage includes an existing Shuttle solid rocket motor and thrust vector control system controlled by an Ascent Thrust Vector Controller (ATVC) designed and built by Honeywell International. The avionics system will be tested in a dedicated System Integration Laboratory located at Lockheed Martin Space Systems (LMSS) in Denver, Colorado. The Upper Stage Simulator (USS) is made up of cylindrical segments that will be stacked and integrated at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) for launch. Glenn Research Center is already building these segments, along with their internal access structures. The active Roll Control System (RoCS) includes two thruster units harvested from Peacekeeper missiles. Duty cycle testing for RoCS was conducted, and fuel tanking and detanking tests will occur at KSC in early 2008. This important flight will provide valuable experience for the ground operations team in integrating, stacking, and launching Ares I. Data from Ares I-X will ensure the safety and reliability of America's newest launch vehicle.

Davis, S.R.↗

NASA NTRS2009

When Failure Means Success: Accepting Risk in Aerospace Development

Over the last three decades, NASA has been diligent in qualifying systems for human space flight. As the Agency transitions from operating the Space Shuttle, its employees must learn to accept higher risk levels to generate the data needed to certify its next human space flight system. The Marshall Center s Engineering workforce is developing the Ares I crew launch vehicle and designing the Ares V cargo launch vehicle for safety, reliability, and cost-effective operations. This presentation will provide a risk retrospective, using first-hand examples from the Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA) and the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit flight demonstrators, while looking ahead to the upcoming Ares I-X uncrewed test flight. The DC-XA was successfully flown twice in 26 hours, setting a new turnaround-time record. Later, one of its 3 landing gears did not deploy, it tipped over, and was destroyed. During structural testing, the X-33 s advanced composite tanks were unable to withstand the forces to which it was subjected and the project was later cancelled. These are examples of successful failures, as the data generated are captured in databases used by vehicle designers today. More recently, the Ares I-X flight readiness review process was streamlined in keeping with the mission's objectives, since human lives are not at stake, which reflects the beginning of a cultural change. Failures are acceptable during testing, as they provide the lessons that actually lead to mission success. These and other examples will stimulate the discussion of when to accept risk in aerospace projects.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS2009

NASA Constellation Program (CxP) Key Driving Requirements and Element Descriptions for International Architecture Working Group (IAWG) Functional Teams Human Transportation Cargo Transportation

The NASA Constellation uncrewed cargo mission delivers cargo to any designated location on the lunar surface (or other staging point) in a single mission. This capability is used to deliver surface infrastructure needed for lunar outpost construction, to provide periodic logistics resupply to support a continuous human lunar presence, and potentially deliver other assets to various locations.In the nominal mission mode, the Altair lunar lander is launched on Ares V into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), following a short Low Earth Orbit (LEO) loiter period, the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) performs the Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) burn and is then jettisoned. The Altair performs translunar trajectory correction maneuvers as necessary and performs the Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) burn. Altair then descends to the surface to land near a designated target, presumably in proximity to an Outpost location or another site of interest for exploration.Alternatively, the EDS and Altair Descent Stage could deliver assets to various staging points within their propulsive capabilities.

Martinez, Roland M.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Ares I-X Overview - The First Chapter in the Next Great Adventure

Ares I-X is the first flight of NASA's new Constellation Program. Ares I-X is a development test flight to provide engineering data to inform the design of the Ares I prior to CDR. Ares I will replace the Space Shuttle which is scheduled for 2010 retirement . Ares I-X is an uncrewed, sub-orbital development flight test . Ares I-X will provide opportunity to test ground facilities and operations at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Ares I-X is on track for May 2009 launch date. Objectives include: (1) Demonstrate control of a dynamically similar, integrated Ares I/Orion, using Ares I relevant ascent control algorithms; (2) Perform an in-flight separation/staging event between a Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage; (3) Demonstrate assembly and recovery of a new Ares I-like First Stage element at KSC; (4) Demonstrate First Stage separation sequencing, and quantify First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance; and (5) Characterize magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque throughout First Stage flight.

Leahy, Bart↗

NASA NTRS2008

Launch and Landing Effects Ground Operations (LLEGO) Model

LLEGO is a model for understanding recurring launch and landing operations costs at Kennedy Space Center for human space flight. Launch and landing operations are often referred to as ground processing, or ground operations. Currently, this function is specific to the ground operations for the Space Shuttle Space Transportation System within the Space Shuttle Program. The Constellation system to follow the Space Shuttle consists of the crewed Orion spacecraft atop an Ares I launch vehicle and the uncrewed Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The Constellation flight and ground systems build upon many elements of the existing Shuttle flight and ground hardware, as well as upon existing organizations and processes. In turn, the LLEGO model builds upon past ground operations research, modeling, data, and experience in estimating for future programs. Rather than to simply provide estimates, the LLEGO model s main purpose is to improve expenses by relating complex relationships among functions (ground operations contractor, subcontractors, civil service technical, center management, operations, etc.) to tangible drivers. Drivers include flight system complexity and reliability, as well as operations and supply chain management processes and technology. Together these factors define the operability and potential improvements for any future system, from the most direct to the least direct expenses.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2009

Flight and Integrated Vehicle Testing: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Generation of Space Exploration Launch Vehicles

Integrated vehicle testing will be critical to ensuring proper vehicle integration of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The Ares Projects, based at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, created the Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) as a separate team to ensure that testing is an integral part of the vehicle development process. As its name indicates, FITO is responsible for managing flight testing for the Ares vehicles. FITO personnel are well on the way toward assembling and flying the first flight test vehicle of Ares I, th Ares I-X. This suborbital development flight will evaluate the performance of Ares I from liftoff to first stage separation, testing flight control algorithms, vehicle roll control, separation and recovery systems, and ground operations. Ares I-X is now scheduled to fly in summer 2009. The follow-on flight, Ares I-Y, will test a full five-segment first stage booster and will include cryogenic propellants in the upper stage, an upper stage engine simulator, and an active launch abort system. The following flight, Orion 1, will be the first flight of an active upper stage and upper stage engine, as well as the first uncrewed flight of an Orion spacecraft into orbit. The Ares Projects are using an incremental buildup of flight capabilities prior to the first operational crewed flight of Ares I and the Orion crew exploration vehicle in 2015. In addition to flight testing, the FITO team will be responsible for conducting hardware, software, and ground vibration tests of the integrated launch vehicle. These efforts will include verifying hardware, software, and grou handling interfaces. Through flight and integrated testing, the Ares Projects will identify and mitigate risks early the United States prepares to take its next giant leaps to the Moon and beyond.

Taylor, Jim↗

NASA NTRS2009

Flight and Integrated Vehicle Testing: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Generation of Space Exploration Launch Vehicles

Integrated vehicle testing will be critical to ensuring proper vehicle integration of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The Ares Projects, based at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, created the Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) as a separate team to ensure that testing is an integral part of the vehicle development process. As its name indicates, FITO is responsible for managing flight testing for the Ares vehicles. FITO personnel are well on the way toward assembling and flying the first flight test vehicle of Ares I, the Ares I-X. This suborbital development flight will evaluate the performance of Ares I from liftoff to first stage separation, testing flight control algorithms, vehicle roll control, separation and recovery systems, and ground operations. Ares I-X is now scheduled to fly in summer 2009. The follow-on flight, Ares I-Y, will test a full five-segment first stage booster and will include cryogenic propellants in the upper stage, an upper stage engine simulator, and an active launch abort system. The following flight, Orion 1, will be the first flight of an active upper stage and upper stage engine, as well as the first uncrewed flight of an Orion spacecraft into orbit. The Ares Projects are using an incremental buildup of flight capabilities prior to the first operational crewed flight of Ares I and the Orion crew exploration vehicle in 2015. In addition to flight testing, the FITO team will be responsible for conducting hardware, software, and ground vibration tests of the integrated launch vehicle. These efforts will include verifying hardware, software, and ground handling interfaces. Through flight and integrated testing, the Ares Projects will identify and mitigate risks early as the United States prepares to take its next giant leaps to the Moon and beyond.

Taylor, J. L.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: Shifting the Payload Design Paradigm

NASA is designing the Ares V heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle to send more crew and cargo to more places on the lunar surface than the 1960s-era Saturn V and to provide ongoing support for a permanent lunar outpost. This uncrewed cargo vehicle is designed to operate together with the Ares I crew vehicle (Figure 1). In addition to this role, however, its unmatched mass and volume capability represent a national asset for exploration, science, and commerce. The Ares V also enables or significantly enhances a large class of space missions not thought possible by scientists and engineers since the Saturn V program ended over 30 years ago. Compared to current systems, it will offer approximately five times the mass and volume to most orbits and locations. This should allow prospective mission planners to build robust payloads with margins that are three to five times the industry norm. The space inside the planned payload shroud has enough usable volume to launch the volumetric equivalent of approximately 10 Apollo Lunar Modules or approximately five equivalent Hubble Space Telescopes. This mass and volume capability to low-Earth orbit (LEO) enables a host of new scientific and observation platforms, such as telescopes, satellites, planetary and solar missions, as well as being able to provide the lift for future large in-space infrastructure missions, such as space based solar power and mining, Earth asteroid defense, propellant depots, etc. In addition, payload designers may also have the option of simplifying their designs or employing Ares V s payload as dumb mass to reduce technical and operational risk. The Ares V team is engaging the potential payload community now, two to three years before System Requirements Review (SRR), in order to better understand the additional requirements from the payload community that could be accommodated in the Ares V design in its conceptual phase. This paper will discuss the Ares V reference mission and capability, as well as its potential to perform other missions in the future.

Sumrall, Phil↗