SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Explorers”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2019

Requirements for Portable Instrument Suites during Human Scientific Exploration of Mars

Human explorers on the surface of Mars will have access to a far wider array of scientific tools than previous crewed planetary exploration missions, but not every tool will be compatible with the restrictions of this exploration. Spectrometers on flyby, orbital, and landed missions are currently used to determine the composition and mineralogy of geological materials of various types and sizes, from small fragments to celestial bodies in the solar system. Handheld spectrometers that are capable of in situ analyses are already used for geological exploration on Earth; however, their usefulness for human exploration missions and how data from multiple handheld instruments could be combined to enhance scientific return must be further evaluated. As part of the Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) research project, we incorporated two handheld instruments, a visible-near infrared spectrometer and an X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometer, into simulated Mars exploration missions conducted on basaltic terrains in Idaho and Hawai'i. To understand the data quality provided by these handheld spectrometers, we evaluated their performance under varying conditions of measurement time, distance, angle, atmosphere, and sample matrix, and we compared data quality between handheld instruments and laboratory techniques. Here, we summarize these findings, provide guidelines and requirements on how to effectively incorporate these instruments into human exploration missions to Mars, and posit that future iterations of these instruments will be beneficial for enhancing science returned from human exploration missions.

Alexander Sehlke↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing the Foundations of an Exploration Class Medical System: Bridging the Capability Gap between LEO and Mars

NASA's overarching mission is to drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and Earth stewardship. Its Artemis Program encompasses the next steps in human space exploration, critical elements of which include the Orion vehicle and Gateway outpost in lunar orbit. Artemis is the first "exploration class" space travel system with the stated mission to establish sustainable exploration of the lunar surface and serve as a bridge to future human exploration of Mars. Success requires understanding both the commonalities and the differences between our experience to date, predominantly in Low-Earth-Orbit, and the challenges expected in long-duration exploration missions. In addition, these missions will incur significant constraints on both vehicle and human systems. To that end, NASA Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element clinicians, engineers, and scientists are developing the "foundation" for a fully vehicle-integrated exploration-class medical system using model-based systems engineering to trace and leverage clinical and engineering content to expand and refine the fidelity and confidence in the medical system itself.

MEDICAL SYSTEMS↗

NASA NTRS1965

Proceedings of the conference on the exploration of Mars and Venus

Although the lunar landing and exploration effort will continue for some time to absorb a large part of the total space exploration effort, attention is now being focused on the possibilities of exploration of the near earth planets, Mars and Venus. While astronomical observations of these planets has been going on for considerable time, recent years have seen an increase in this activity. One Venus "Fly-By" has been accomplished and the success of Mariner IV gives evidence that this means of observation is practical and undoubtedly will continue. The problems of manned and unmanned exploration of these planets have occupied the attention of a number of scientists and engineers engaged in the space effort. The papers presented at the conference discussed the characteristics of the planets and their atmospheres and the problems inherent in their exploration. The topics included information, speculation and future planning based on the best opinions of experts in the field. It was the aim of the conference to furnish participants from educational institutions, private industry, research laboratories and governmental agencies knowledge of this next step in space exploration. For the educators, perhaps new information for instruction and new avenues of research were the greatest dividends to be expected. In giving the other participants an opportunity to hear the leaders in the field and discuss their own problems, it is hoped that the Conference made a significant contribution to the space exploration effort.

Mars (Planet)↗

NASA NTRS2013

Development and Execution of Autonomous Procedures Onboard the International Space Station to Support the Next Phase of Human Space Exploration

Now that major assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete, NASA's focus has turned to using this high fidelity in-space research testbed to not only advance fundamental science research, but also demonstrate and mature technologies and develop operational concepts that will enable future human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The ISS as a Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) project was established to reduce risks for manned missions to exploration destinations by utilizing ISS as a high fidelity micro-g laboratory to demonstrate technologies, operations concepts, and techniques associated with crew autonomous operations. One of these focus areas is the development and execution of ISS Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) autonomous flight crew procedures intended to increase crew autonomy that will be required for long duration human exploration missions. Due to increasing communications delays and reduced logistics resupply, autonomous procedures are expected to help reduce crew reliance on the ground flight control team, increase crew performance, and enable the crew to become more subject-matter experts on both the exploration space vehicle systems and the scientific investigation operations that will be conducted on a long duration human space exploration mission. These tests make use of previous or ongoing projects tested in ground analogs such as Research and Technology Studies (RATS) and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Since the latter half of 2012, selected non-critical ISS systems crew procedures have been used to develop techniques for building ISTAR autonomous procedures, and ISS flight crews have successfully executed them without flight controller involvement. Although the main focus has been preparing for exploration, the ISS has been a beneficiary of this synergistic effort and is considering modifying additional standard ISS procedures that may increase crew efficiency, reduce operational costs, and raise the amount of crew time available for scientific research. The next phase of autonomous procedure development is expected to include payload science and human research investigations. Additionally, ISS International Partners have expressed interest in participating in this effort. The recently approved one-year crew expedition starting in 2015, consisting of one Russian and one U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) crewmember, will be used not only for long duration human research investigations but also for the testing of exploration operations concepts, including crew autonomy.

beyond low earth orbit (BLEO)↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRS2023

Science Objectives for Human Exploration of Mars Workshop Report

The Science Objectives for Human Exploration of Mars Workshop was held in Denver, Colorado on May 4–6, 2022. The workshop was co-sponsored by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate to actively engage the planetary science community to determine what planetary science should be done by human crews on the martian surface and how those science objectives can be achieved. Sessions at the Science Objectives for Human Exploration of Mars Workshop were organized around specific planetary science objectives and mission architecture concepts that were identified during the workshop as the highest priority for human exploration. The intent of this workshop was to synthesize a notional, integrated concept of operations for each scenario to aid in planning and refining the mission architecture for the first human mission to Mars. Results from the Planetary Decadal Survey Report were released xx days before the workshop and were briefed to workshop participants who incorporated the findings in the discussions. With the Artemis missions, humans will return to the Moon using innovative technologies to explore the lunar surface. We will apply what we learn about exploration architecture, surface infrastructure, and science and exploration operations on and around the Moon to conduct successful missions with the first astronauts to Mars. A human mission to Mars will be a landmark achievement and a golden opportunity to make groundbreaking scientific discoveries on Mars. The potential scope of the science activities and impact of achieving those objectives are extraordinary.

Mars↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

technology development↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗

NASA NTRS1994

The Moon as a way station for planetary exploration

The Moon can be on the pathway to the exploration of other planets in the solar system in three distinct ways: science, systems and technology experience, and as a fuel depot. The most important of these from the point of view of near term potential is to provide systems and technology development that increases capability and reduces the cost and risk of Mars exploration. The development of capability for a lunar program, if planned properly, can significantly influence strategies for sending humans to Mars. In conclusion, the exploration of the Moon should come before the exploration of Mars. This is a statement of developmental and operational logic that is almost self evident. Technological advancement could, however, make a different strategy reasonable. Principally, the development of a propulsion capability that could substantially reduce round trip mission times to Mars (to say 6 to 12 months) could eliminate much of the argument that the Moon is an essential stepping stone. This would reduce the problem to one of similitude with current space station program concepts. However, for any reasonably near term program, such technology does not appear likely to be available. Thus, the answer remains that lunar exploration should come first, and the expectation that it will make Mars exploration much more affordable and safe. The use of lunar propellant in an Earth-Mars transportation system is not practical with current propulsion systems; however, the discovery of caches of water ice at a lunar pole could change considerably the strategy for utilization of lunar resources in planetary exploration.

Duke, M. B.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Aerobots and Hydrobots for Planetary Exploration

In this new Millennium, NASA will expand its presence in space. Many new planetary bodies have been discovered, and some previously known bodies are now believed to have oceans. We now know of 66 moons in our own Solar System, one with an atmosphere, 16 with water ice or oceans, and 5 with both. In addition, we now know of 20 extra-solar planets. In order to expand our presence in space and explore in a cost effective manner, we need a repertoire of new types of planetary exploration vehicles to explore both atmospheres and oceans. To address this need a spectrum of new classes of vehicles are being developed. These include aerobots and hydrobots, and incorporate Department of Defense miniaturization developments and smart materials. This paper outlines: the remarkable miniaturization developments applicable to robotic vehicles for the exploration of planetary atmospheres and oceans; Aerobots, the vehicles designed for planetary atmospheric exploration; Hydrobots, those designed for planetary ocean exploration; planetary atmospheric data; and Europa ocean exploration missions.

Barrett, Chris↗

NASA NTRS2004

Simulation Based Acquisition for NASA's Office of Exploration Systems

In January 2004, President George W. Bush unveiled his vision for NASA to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. This vision includes the goal to extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon no later than 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations. In response to this vision, NASA has created the Office of Exploration Systems (OExS) to develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures to explore and support decisions about human exploration destinations, including the development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). Within the OExS organization, NASA is implementing Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA), a robust Modeling & Simulation (M&S) environment integrated across all acquisition phases and programs/teams, to make the realization of the President s vision more certain. Executed properly, SBA will foster better informed, timelier, and more defensible decisions throughout the acquisition life cycle. By doing so, SBA will improve the quality of NASA systems and speed their development, at less cost and risk than would otherwise be the case. SBA is a comprehensive, Enterprise-wide endeavor that necessitates an evolved culture, a revised spiral acquisition process, and an infrastructure of advanced Information Technology (IT) capabilities. SBA encompasses all project phases (from requirements analysis and concept formulation through design, manufacture, training, and operations), professional disciplines, and activities that can benefit from employing SBA capabilities. SBA capabilities include: developing and assessing system concepts and designs; planning manufacturing, assembly, transport, and launch; training crews, maintainers, launch personnel, and controllers; planning and monitoring missions; responding to emergencies by evaluating effects and exploring solutions; and communicating across the OExS enterprise, within the Government, and with the general public. The SBA process features empowered collaborative teams (including industry partners) to integrate requirements, acquisition, training, operations, and sustainment. The SBA process also utilizes an increased reliance on and investment in M&S to reduce design risk. SBA originated as a joint Industry and Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to define and integrate an acquisition process that employs robust, collaborative use of M&S technology across acquisition phases and programs. The SBA process was successfully implemented in the Air Force s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.

Hale, Joe↗

NASA NTRS2004

STS Derived Exploration Launch Operations

A key aspect of the new space exploration programs will be the approach to optimize launch operations. A STS Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) Program can provide a cost effective, low risk, and logical step to launch all of the elements of the exploration program. Many benefits can be gained by utilizing the synergy of a common launch site as an exploration spaceport as well as evolving the resources of the current Space Shuttle Program (SSP) to meet the challenges of the Vision for Space Exploration. In particular, the launch operation resources of the SSP can be transitioned to the exploration program and combined with the operations efficiencies of unmanned EELVs to obtain the best of both worlds, resulting in lean launch operations for crew and cargo missions of the exploration program. The SDLV Program would then not only capture the extensive human space flight launch operations knowledge, but also provide for the safe fly-out of the SSP through continuity of system critical skills, manufacturing infrastructure, and ability to maintain and attract critical skill personnel. Thus, a SDLV Program can smoothly transition resources from the SSP and meet the transportation needs to continue the voyage of discovery of the space exploration program.

Best, Joel↗

NASA NTRS2006

Mission Architecture Comparison for Human Lunar Exploration

The Vision for Space Exploration outlines a bold new national space exploration policy that holds as one of its primary objectives the extension of human presence outward into the Solar System, starting with a return to the Moon in preparation for the future exploration of Mars and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently engaged in several preliminary analysis efforts in order to develop the requirements necessary for implementing this objective in a manner that is both sustainable and affordable. Such analyses investigate various operational concepts, or mission architectures , by which humans can best travel to the lunar surface, live and work there for increasing lengths of time, and then return to Earth. This paper reports on a trade study conducted in support of NASA s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate investigating the relative merits of three alternative lunar mission architecture strategies. The three architectures use for reference a lunar exploration campaign consisting of multiple 90-day expeditions to the Moon s polar regions, a strategy which was selected for its high perceived scientific and operational value. The first architecture discussed incorporates the lunar orbit rendezvous approach employed by the Apollo lunar exploration program. This concept has been adapted from Apollo to meet the particular demands of a long-stay polar exploration campaign while assuring the safe return of crew to Earth. Lunar orbit rendezvous is also used as the baseline against which the other alternate concepts are measured. The first such alternative, libration point rendezvous, utilizes the unique characteristics of the cislunar libration point instead of a low altitude lunar parking orbit as a rendezvous and staging node. Finally, a mission strategy which does not incorporate rendezvous after the crew ascends from the Moon is also studied. In this mission strategy, the crew returns directly to Earth from the lunar surface, and is thus referred to as direct return. Figures of merit in the areas of safety and mission success, mission effectiveness, extensibility, and affordability are used to evaluate and compare the lunar orbit rendezvous, libration point rendezvous, and direct return architectures, and this paper summarizes the results of those assessments.

Geffre, Jim↗

NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth s moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a systems engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD s Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. these products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Human Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth's moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a system engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD's Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. These products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Overview: The Crew Launch Vehicle and the Cargo Launch Vehicle Systems

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration (January 2004) serves as the foundation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. As the NASA Administrator outlined during his confirmation hearing in April 2005, these include: 1) Flying the Space Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. 2) Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. 3) Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the human space flight program to focus on exploration. 4) Completing the International Space Station (ISS) in a manner consistent with international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. 5) Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. 6) Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. In spring 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). The ESAS team performed in-depth evaluations of a number of space transportation architectures and provided recommendations based on their findings? The ESAS analysis focused on a human-rated Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) for astronaut transport and a heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) to carry equipment, materials, and supplies for lunar missions and, later, the first human journeys to Mars. After several months of intense study utilizing safety and reliability, technical performance, budget, and schedule figures of merit in relation to design reference missions, the ESAS design options were unveiled in summer 2005. As part of NASA's systems engineering approach, these point of departure architectures have been refined through trade studies during the ongoing design phase leading to the development phase that begins in 2008. Comprehensive reviews of engineering data and business assessments by both internal and independent reviewers serve as decision gates to ensure that systems can fully meet customer and stakeholder requirements. This paper provides the current CLV and CaLV configuration designs and gives examples of the progress being made during the first year of this significant effort. Safe, reliable, cost-effective space transportation systems are a foundational piece of America s future in space and the next step in realizing the plan for revitalizing lunar capabilities on the passageway to the human exploration of Mars. While building on legacy knowledge and heritage hardware for risk reduction, NASA will apply lessons learned from developing these new launch vehicles to the growth path for future missions. The elements for mission success and continued U.S. leadership in space have been assembled over the past year. As NASA designs and develops these two new systems over the next dozen years, visible progress, such as that reported in this paper, may sustain the national will to stay the course across political administrations and weather the inevitable trials that will be experienced during this challenging endeavor.

Snoddy, Jimmy R.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Applied Nanotechnology for Human Space Exploration

A viewgraph presentation describing nanotechnology for human space exploration is shown. The topics include: 1) NASA's Strategic Vision; 2) Exploration Architecture; 3) Future Exploration Mission Requirements Cannot be met with Conventional Materials; 4) Nanomaterials: Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes; 5) Applied Nanotechnology at JSC: Fundamentals to Applications; 6) Technology Readiness Levels (TRL); 7) Growth, Modeling, Diagnostics and Production; 8) Characterization: Purity, Dispersion and Consistency; 9) Processing; 10) Nanoelectronics: Enabling Technologies; 11) Applications for Human Space Exploration; 12) Exploration Life Support: Atmosphere Revitalization System; 13) Advanced and Exploration Life Support: Regenerable CO2 Removal; 14) Exploration Life Support: Water Recovery; 15) Advanced Life Support: Water Disinfection/Recovery; 16) Power and Energy: Supercapacitors and Fuel Cells; 17) Nanomaterials for EMI Shielding; 18) Active Radiation Dosimeter; 19) Advanced Thermal Protection System (TPS) Repair; 20) Thermal Radiation and Impact Protection (TRIPS); 21) Nanotechnology: Astronaut Health Management; 22) JSC Nanomaterials Group Collaborations.

Yowell, Leonard L.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Scientific Goals and Objectives for the Human Exploration of Mars: 1. Biology and Atmosphere/Climate

To prepare for the exploration of Mars by humans, as outlined in the new national vision for Space Exploration (VSE), the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG), chartered by NASA's Mars Exploration Program (MEP), formed a Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG), in March 2007. HEM-SAG was chartered to develop the scientific goals and objectives for the human exploration of Mars based on the Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities.1 The HEM-SAG is one of several humans to Mars scientific, engineering and mission architecture studies chartered in 2007 to support NASA s plans for the human exploration of Mars. The HEM-SAG is composed of about 30 Mars scientists representing the disciplines of Mars biology, climate/atmosphere, geology and geophysics from the U.S., Canada, England, France, Italy and Spain. MEPAG selected Drs. James B. Garvin (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) and Joel S. Levine (NASA Langley Research Center) to serve as HEMSAG co-chairs. The HEM-SAG team conducted 20 telecons and convened three face-to-face meetings from March through October 2007. The management of MEP and MEPAG were briefed on the HEM-SAG interim findings in May. The HEM-SAG final report was presented on-line to the full MEPAG membership and was presented at the MEPAG meeting on February 20-21, 2008. This presentation will outline the HEM-SAG biology and climate/atmosphere goals and objectives. A companion paper will outline the HEM-SAG geology and geophysics goals and objectives.

Levine, Joel S.↗