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 235 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2008

Robots Explore the Farthest Reaches of Earth and Space

"We were the first that ever burst/Into that silent sea," the title character recounts in Samuel Taylor Coleridge s opus Rime of the Ancient Mariner. This famous couplet is equally applicable to undersea exploration today as surface voyages then, and has recently been applied to space travel in the title of a chronicle of the early years of human space flight ("Into That Silent Sea: Trailblazers of the Space Era, 1961-1965"), companion to the +n the Shadow of the Moon book and movie. The parallel is certainly fitting, considering both fields explore unknown, harsh, and tantalizingly inhospitable environments. For starters, exploring the Briny Deep and the Final Frontier requires special vehicles, and the most economical and safest means for each employ remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). ROVs have proven the tool of choice for exploring remote locations, allowing scientists to explore the deepest part of the sea and the furthest reaches of the solar system with the least weight penalty, the most flexibility and specialization of design, and without the need to provide for sustaining human life, or the risk of jeopardizing that life. Most NASA probes, including the historic Voyager I and II spacecraft and especially the Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, feature remote operation, but new missions and new planetary environments will demand new capabilities from the robotic explorers of the future. NASA has an acute interest in the development of specialized ROVs, as new lessons learned on Earth can be applied to new environments and increasingly complex missions in the future of space exploration.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2004

Human-Robot Planetary Exploration Teams

The EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA) project at NASA Johnson Space Center studies human-robot interaction and robotic assistance for future human planetary exploration. Over the past four years, the ERA project has been performing field tests with one or more four-wheeled robotic platforms and one or more space-suited humans. These tests have provided experience in how robots can assist humans, how robots and humans can communicate in remote environments, and what combination of humans and robots works best for different scenarios. The most efficient way to understand what tasks human explorers will actually perform, and how robots can best assist them, is to have human explorers and scientists go and explore in an outdoor, planetary-relevant environment, with robots to demonstrate what they are capable of, and roboticists to observe the results. It can be difficult to have a human expert itemize all the needed tasks required for exploration while sitting in a lab: humans do not always remember all the details, and experts in one arena may not even recognize that the lower level tasks they take for granted may be essential for a roboticist to know about. Field tests thus create conditions that more accurately reveal missing components and invalid assumptions, as well as allow tests and comparisons of new approaches and demonstrations of working systems. We have performed field tests in our local rock yard, in several locations in the Arizona desert, and in the Utah desert. We have tested multiple exploration scenarios, such as geological traverses, cable or solar panel deployments, and science instrument deployments. The configuration of our robot can be changed, based on what equipment is needed for a given scenario, and the sensor mast can even be placed on one of two robot bases, each with different motion capabilities. The software architecture of our robot is also designed to be as modular as possible, to allow for hardware and configuration changes. Two focus areas of our research are safety and crew time efficiency. For safety, our work involves enabling humans to reliably communicate with a robot while moving in the same workspace, and enabling robots to monitor and advise humans of potential problems. Voice, gesture, remote computer control, and enhanced robot intelligence are methods we are studying. For crew time efficiency, we are investigating the effects of assigning different roles to humans and robots in collaborative exploration scenarios.

Tyree, Kimberly↗

NASA NTRS2000

An Integrated Exploration Strategy

Many new scientific findings in planetary science (potential life in a Mars meteorite, possible frozen water at the Lunar Poles, permanently lit region at the lunar south pole, recent water flow on Mars) provide a compelling case for humans to once again leave low earth orbit and explore. Robotic missions are capable of conducting science, but only humans can explore and discover. The challenge is to build an affordable exploration program. This can be done by aggressively evolving our current systems, developing high payoff technologies, leveraging off commercial and other agencies' programs, and developing a set of core capabilities to be used to explore a variety of destinations. NASA has a Strategic Roadmap based on detailed mission studies to develop these core technologies and capabilities to allow human space exploration. Advances in human support, launch vehicle. improvements, development of in-space transportation systems, efficient power generation and distribution, and In-Situ Resource Utilization are all required to meet the exploration challenge. The groundwork today will provide the technology and tools needed to conduct safe, affordable, and efficient exploration to the moon, asteroids, deep space observatories and Mars.

Conley, Mike↗

NASA NTRS2012

Human Missions to Near-Earth Asteroids: An Update on NASA's Current Status and Proposed Activities for Small Body Exploration

Introduction: Over the past several years, much attention has been focused on the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). Two independent NASA studies examined the feasibility of sending piloted missions to NEAs, and in 2009, the Augustine Commission identified NEAs as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. More recently the current U.S. presidential administration directed NASA to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s. This directive became part of the official National Space Policy of the United States of America as of June 28, 2010. Dynamical Assessment: The current near-term NASA human spaceflight capability is in the process of being defined while the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS) are still in development. Hence, those NEAs in more accessible heliocentric orbits relative to a minimal interplanetary exploration capability will be considered for the first missions. If total mission durations for the first voyages to NEAs are to be kept to less than one year, with minimal velocity changes, then NEA rendezvous missions ideally will take place within 0.1 AU of Earth (approx about 5 million km or 37 lunar distances). Human Exploration Considerations: These missions would be the first human expeditions to inter-planetary bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system and would prove useful for testing technologies required for human missions to Mars, Phobos and Deimos, and other Solar System destinations. Missions to NEAs would undoubtedly provide a great deal of technical and engineering data on spacecraft operations for future human space exploration while conducting detailed scientific investigations of these primitive objects. Current analyses of operational concepts suggest that stay times of 15 to 30 days may be possible at these destinations. In addition, the resulting scientific investigations would refine designs for future extraterrestrial In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), and assist in the development of hazard mitigation techniques for planetary defense. Conclusions: The scientific and hazard mitigation benefits, along with the programmatic and operational benefits of a human venture beyond the Earth-Moon system, make a piloted mission to a NEA using NASA's proposed human exploration systems a compelling endeavor

Abell, P. A.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Desert RATS 2011: Near-Earth Asteroid Human Exploration Operations

The Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2011 field test involved the planning and execution of a series of exploration scenarios under operational conditions similar to those that would be expected during a human exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEA). The focus was on understanding the operations tempo during simulated NEA exploration and the implications of communications latency and limited data bandwidth. Anchoring technologies and sampling techniques were not evaluated due to the immaturity of those technologies and the inability to meaningfully test them at D-RATS. Reduced gravity analogs and simulations are being used to fully evaluate Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) and extravehicular (EVA) operations and interactions in near-weightlessness at a NEA as part of NASA s integrated analogs program. Hypotheses were tested by planning and performing a series of 1-day simulated exploration excursions comparing test conditions all of which involved a single Deep Space Habitat (DSH) and either zero, one, or two MMSEVs; three or four crewmembers; one of two different communications bandwidths; and a 100-second roundtrip communications latency between the field site and Houston. Excursions were executed at the Black Point Lava Flow test site with a Mission Control Center and Science Support Room at Johnson Space Center (JSC) being operated with 100-second roundtrip communication latency to the field. Crews were composed of astronauts and professional field geologists and teams of Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach (EPO) experts also supported the mission simulations each day. Data were collected separately from the Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and EPO teams to assess the test conditions from multiple perspectives. For the operations tested, data indicates practically significant benefits may be realized by including at least one MMSEV and by including 4 versus 3 crewmembers in the NEA exploration architecture as measured by increased Scientific Data Quality, EVA Exploration Time, Capability Assessment Ratings, and Overall Acceptability ratings by Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach teams. A combination of text and voice was used to effectively communicate over the 100-second roundtrip communications latency and increased communication bandwidth yielded a small but practically significant improvement in Overall Acceptability as rated by the Science team, although the impact of bandwidth on scientific strategic planning was not assessed. No effect of increased bandwidth was observed with respect to Crew, Mission Operations, or EPO team ratings of Overall Acceptability.

Abercromby, Andrew↗

NASA NTRS2012

A Notional Example of Understanding Human Exploration Traverses on the Lunar Surface

Mr. Gruener received an M.S. in physical science, with an emphasis in planetary geology, from the University of Houston-Clear Lake in 1994. He then began working with NASA JSC.s Solar System Exploration Division on the development of prototype planetary science instruments, the development of a mineral-based substrate for nutrient delivery to plant growth systems in bio-regenerative life support systems, and in support of the Mars Exploration Rover missions in rock and mineral identification. In 2004, Mr. Gruener again participated in a renewed effort to plan and design missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. He participated in many exploration planning activities, including NASA.s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Global Exploration Strategy Workshop, Lunar Architecture Team 1 and 2, Constellation Lunar Architecture Team, the Global Point of Departure Lunar Exploration Team, and the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture. Mr. Gruener has also been an active member of the science team supporting NASA.s Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS).

Gruener, John↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Single Habitat Module Concept for Exploration - Mission Planning and Mass Estimates

The Single Habitat Module (SHM) concept approach to the infrastructure and conduct of exploration missions combines many of new promising technologies with a central concept of mission architectures that use a single habitat module for all phases of an exploration mission. Integrating mission elements near Earth and fully fueling them prior to departure of the vicinity of Earth provides the capability of using the single habitat both in transit to/from an exploration destination and while exploring the destination. The concept employs the capability to return the habitat and interplanetary propulsion system to Earth vicinity so that those elements can be reused on subsequent exploration missions. This paper provides an overview of the SHM concept and the advantages it provides. A summary of calculations of the mass of the habitat propulsion system (HPS) needed to get the habitat from Low Mars Orbit (LMO) to the surface and back to LMO and an overview of trajectory and mission mass assessments related to use of a high specific impulse space based propulsion system is provided. Those calculations lead to the conclusion that the SHM concept can significantly reduce the mass required and streamline mission operations to explore Mars (and thus all exploration destinations).

Chambliss, Joe↗

NASA NTRS2013

Exploration of Near-Earth Asteroids

A major goal for NASA's human spaceflight program is to send astronauts to near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) in the coming decades. Missions to NEAs would undoubtedly provide a great deal of technical and engineering data on spacecraft operations for future human space exploration while conducting in-depth scientific examinations of these primitive objects. However, prior to sending human explorers to NEAs, robotic investigations of these bodies would be required in order to maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk. These precursor missions to NEAs would fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps concerning their physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration of these relatively unknown destinations. Information obtained from a human investigation of a NEA, together with ground-based observations and prior spacecraft investigations of asteroids and comets, will also provide a real measure of ground truth to data obtained from terrestrial meteorite collections. Major advances in the areas of geochemistry, impact history, thermal history, isotope analyses, mineralogy, space weathering, formation ages, thermal inertias, volatile content, source regions, solar system formation, etc. can be expected from human NEA missions. Samples directly returned from a primitive body would lead to the same kind of breakthroughs for understanding NEAs that the Apollo samples provided for understanding the Earth-Moon system and its formation history. In addition, robotic precursor and human exploration missions to NEAs would allow the NASA and its international partners to gain operational experience in performing complex tasks (e.g., sample collection, deployment of payloads, retrieval of payloads, etc.) with crew, robots, and spacecraft under microgravity conditions at or near the surface of a small body. This would provide an important synergy between the worldwide Science and Exploration communities, which will be crucial for development of future international deep space exploration architectures and has potential benefits for future exploration of other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.

Abell, Paul↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Antarctic Search for Meteorites: A Model for Deep Space Exploration

In an era of shrinking buying power and reduced flight opportunities, NASA must extract the greatest possible value from all sources of insight into the future of human space exploration. Antarctica is one such source. The history of Antarctic exploration has many political and technical parallels with the development of space, and Antarctica's remoteness and harsh climate make it an excellent proxy for space (e.g., [1,2]). Links between exploration of space and of the Antarctic date back to the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958, which saw both the launch of Sputnik 1 and the establishment of a station at the South Pole. The Antarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) is an annual expedition to the south polar plateau to collect meteorites. Although its intent is not to simulate a space mission, the handful of astronauts who have participated in ANSMET agree that it is very similar to a long-duration space flight. Independently, NASA and other space agencies have simulated deep space exploration missions in "analog" activities at remote field sites on Earth (e.g., [3]). These include NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) [4,5], Desert Research And Technology Studies (Desert RATS) [6,7], and the Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP or simply Pavilion Lake) [8]. This report focuses on NEEMO, Desert RATS, and PLRP because of the author's firsthand experience with them. Other noteworthy analogs, such as the arctic Haughton Mars Project and the European Space Agency's underground Cooperative Adventure for Valuing and Exercising human behavior and performance Skills (CAVES), are not treated here. NASA analogs often include fully staffed control centers, astronauts serving as crew, and realistic mission timelines lasting one to two weeks. Analogs have provided key insights into system architectures and operational concepts for the future human exploration of deep space. They have pioneered techniques for human communication with significant speed-of-light delays, for conducting spacewalks on natural objects with negligible surface gravity, and for empowering exploration crews to work with reduced dependence on a ground control center. They have field-tested dozens of emerging technologies including spacewalking tools and full-scale prototype vehicles and habitats. They have provided valuable experience for astronauts preparing for their first space flight, and for flown crewmembers who will take command roles on later flights. Some analogs, especially PLRP, have connected observers in the field with science teams in remotely located control centers to produce high-quality, publishable scientific results. The analogs have accomplished all of this at a tiny fraction of the cost of an actual space flight. This report treats ANSMET as space flight analog. The chapter following this introduction describes ANSMET in depth. The report then presents data on logistics and crew considerations that may be useful for developers of future human space exploration missions. It offers detailed comparisons between ANSMET and past, present, and future space flights on the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), and a proposed Mars mission. Those comparisons are intended to complement the work of Eppler [2], who compares ANSMET to the Apollo moon flights. This report also compares ANSMET with the Desert RATS, NEEMO, and PLRP analogs. It then presents observations and makes recommendations related to ANSMET's value as a simulated space mission. The report ends with a short conclusion. The remainder of this introductory chapter provides background material to help readers interpret the rest of the report. It gives brief overviews of Space Shuttle and ISS missions along with information on a notional future human flight to Mars. It also presents the general features of three of NASA's space flight "analog" projects. With those points of reference in place, the chapter concludes with an overview of ANSMET.

Love, Stanley G.↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Single Habitat Module Concept for Exploration - Mission Planning and Mass Estimates

The Single Habitat Module (SHM) concept approach to the infrastructure and conduct of exploration missions combines many new promising technologies with a central concept of mission architectures that use a single habitat module for all phases of an exploration mission. Integrating mission elements near Earth and fully fueling them prior to departure of the vicinity of Earth provides the capability of using the single habitat both in transit to/from an exploration destination and while exploring the destination. The concept employs the capability to return the habitat and interplanetary propulsion system to Earth vicinity so that those elements can be reused on subsequent exploration missions. This paper provides an overview of the SHM concept and the advantages it provides. The paper also provides a summary of calculations of the mass of the Habitat Propulsion System (HPS) needed to get the habitat from low-Mars orbit (LMO) to the surface and back to LMO, and an overview of trajectory and mission mass assessments related to use of a high specific impulse space-based propulsion system. Those calculations led to the conclusion that the SHM concept results in low total mass required and streamlines mission operations to explore Mars (or other exploration destinations).

Chambliss, Joe↗

NASA NTRS2013

Technology Needs to Support Future Mars Exploration

The Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG) under the direction of Dr. Orlando Figueroa, was chartered to develop options for a program-level architecture for robotic exploration of Mars consistent with the objective to send humans to Mars in the 2030's. Scientific pathways were defined for future exploration, and multiple architectural options were developed that meet current science goals and support the future human exploration objectives. Integral to the process was the identification of critical technologies which enable the future scientific and human exploration goals. This paper describes the process for technology capabilities identification and examines the critical capability needs identified in the MPPG process. Several critical enabling technologies that have been identified to support the robotic exploration goals and with potential feedforward application to human exploration goals. Potential roadmaps for the development and validation of these technologies are discussed, including options for subscale technology demonstrations of future human exploration technologies on robotic missions.

Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG)↗

NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance During Exploration Flight Test 1

The Orion Launch Abort System Office is taking part in flight testing to enable certification that the system is capable of delivering the astronauts aboard the Orion Crew Module to a safe environment during both nominal and abort conditions. Orion is a NASA program, Exploration Flight Test 1 is managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched on a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. Although the Launch Abort System Office has tested the critical systems to the Launch Abort System jettison event on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. During Exploration Flight Test 1, the Launch Abort System was to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. Exploration Flight Test 1 was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. This was the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. Exploration Flight Test 1 provides critical data that enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The Exploration Flight Test 1 separation event occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff. The separation of the Launch Abort System jettison occurs once Orion is safely through the most dynamic portion of the launch. This paper will present a brief overview of the objectives of the Launch Abort System during a nominal Orion flight. Secondly, the paper will present the performance of the Launch Abort System at it fulfilled those objectives. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, Rachel↗

NASA NTRS2016

NASA Virtual Institutes: International Bridges for Space Exploration

NASA created the first virtual institute, the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI), in 2009 with an aim toward bringing together geographically disparate and multidisciplinary teams toward the goal of answering broad questions in the then-new discipline of astrobiology. With the success of the virtual institute model, NASA then created the NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) in 2008 to address questions of science and human exploration of the Moon, and then the NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) in 2012 which addresses key questions in the development of aeronautics technologies. With the broadening of NASA's human exploration targets to include Near Earth Asteroids and the moons of Mars as well as the Moon, the NLSI morphed into the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) in 2012. SSERVI funds domestic research teams to address broad questions at the intersection of science and human exploration, with the underlying principle that science enables human exploration, and human exploration enables science. Nine domestic teams were funded in 2014 for a five-year period to address a variety of different topics, and nine international partners (with more to come) also work with the U.S. teams on a variety of topics of mutual interest. The result is a robust and productive research infrastructure that is not only scientifically productive but can respond to strategic topics of domestic and international interest, and which develops a new generation of researchers. This is all accomplished with the aid of virtual collaboration technologies which enable scientific research at a distance. The virtual institute model is widely applicable to a range of space science and exploration problems.

SSERVI↗

NASA NTRS2004

Lessons Learned Study Final Report for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

This report is the final product of a 90-day study performed for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The study was to assemble lessons NASA has learned from previous programs that could help the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate pursue the Exploration vision. It focuses on those lessons that should have the greatest significance to the Directorate during the formulation of program and mission plans. The study team reviewed a large number of lessons learned reports and data bases, including the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and Rogers Commission reports on the Shuttle accidents, accident reports from robotic space flight systems, and a number of management reviews by the Defense Sciences Board, Government Accountability Office, and others. The consistency of the lessons, findings, and recommendations validate the adequacy of the data set. In addition to reviewing existing databases, a series of workshops was held at each of the NASA centers and headquarters that included senior managers from the current workforce as well as retirees. The full text of the workshop reports is included in Appendix A. A lessons learned website was opened up to permit current and retired NASA personnel and on-site contractors to input additional lessons as they arise. These new lessons, when of appropriate quality and relevance, will be brought to the attention of managers. The report consists of four parts: Part 1 provides a small set of lessons, called the Executive Lessons Learned, that represent critical lessons that the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should act on immediately. This set of Executive Lessons and their supporting rationale have been reviewed at length and fully endorsed by a team of distinguished NASA alumni; Part 2 contains a larger set of lessons, called the Selected Lessons Learned, which have been chosen from the lessons database and center workshop reports on the basis of their specific significance and relevance to the near-term work of the Exploration Directorate. These lessons frequently support the Executive lessons but are more general in nature; Part 3 consists of the reports of the center workshops that were conducted as part of this activity. These reports are included in their entirety (approximately 200 pages) in Appendix G and have significance for specific managers; Part 4 consists of the remainder of the lessons that have been selected by this effort and assembled into a database for the use of the Explorations Directorate. The database is archived and hosted in the Lessons Learned Knowledge Network, which provides a flexible search capability using a wide variety of search terms. Finally, a spreadsheet lists databases searched and a bibliography identifies reports that have been reviewed as sources of lessons for this task. NASA has been presented with many learning opportunities. We have conducted numerous programs, some extremely successful and others total failures. Most have been documented with a formal lessons learned activity, but we have not always incorporated these learning opportunities into our normal modes of business. For example, the Robbins Report of 2001 clearly indicates that many project failures of the past two decades were the result of violating well documented best practices, often in direct violation of management instructions and directives. An overarching lesson emerges: that disciplined execution in accordance with proven best practices is the greatest single contributor to a successful program. The Lessons Learned task team offers a sincere hope that the lessons presented herein will be helpful to the Exploration Systems Directorate in charting and executing their course. The success of the Directorate and of NASA in general depends on our collective ability to move forward without having to relearn the lessons of those who have gone before.

Van Laak, Jim↗

NASA NTRS2016

Graphical Visualization of Human Exploration Capabilities

NASA's pioneering space strategy will require advanced capabilities to expand the boundaries of human exploration on the Journey to Mars (J2M). The Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) architecture serves as a framework to identify critical capabilities that need to be developed and tested in order to enable a range of human exploration destinations and missions. Agency-wide System Maturation Teams (SMT) are responsible for the maturation of these critical exploration capabilities and help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the EMC-identified capabilities. Systems Capability Organization Reporting Engine boards (SCOREboards) were developed to integrate the SMT data sets into cohesive human exploration capability stories that can be used to promote dialog and communicate NASA's exploration investments. Each SCOREboard provides a graphical visualization of SMT capability development needs that enable exploration missions, and presents a comprehensive overview of data that outlines a roadmap of system maturation needs critical for the J2M. SCOREboards are generated by a computer program that extracts data from a main repository, sorts the data based on a tiered data reduction structure, and then plots the data according to specified user inputs. The ability to sort and plot varying data categories provides the flexibility to present specific SCOREboard capability roadmaps based on customer requests. This paper presents the development of the SCOREboard computer program and shows multiple complementary, yet different datasets through a unified format designed to facilitate comparison between datasets. Example SCOREboard capability roadmaps are presented followed by a discussion of how the roadmaps are used to: 1) communicate capability developments and readiness of systems for future missions, and 2) influence the definition of NASA's human exploration investment portfolio through capability-driven processes. The paper concludes with a description of planned future work to modify the computer program to include additional data and of alternate capability roadmap formats currently under consideration.

Rodgers, Erica M.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Decision Analysis Methods Used to Make Appropriate Investments in Human Exploration Capabilities and Technologies

NASA is transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities in low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. Prudent investments in capability and technology developments, based on mission need, are critical for enabling a campaign of human exploration missions. There are a wide variety of capabilities and technologies that could enable these missions, so it is a major challenge for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to make knowledgeable portfolio decisions. It is critical for this pioneering initiative that these investment decisions are informed with a prioritization process that is robust and defensible. It is NASA's role to invest in targeted technologies and capabilities that would enable exploration missions even though specific requirements have not been identified. To inform these investments decisions, NASA's HEOMD has supported a variety of analysis activities that prioritize capabilities and technologies. These activities are often based on input from subject matter experts within the NASA community who understand the technical challenges of enabling human exploration missions. This paper will review a variety of processes and methods that NASA has used to prioritize and rank capabilities and technologies applicable to human space exploration. The paper will show the similarities in the various processes and showcase instances were customer specified priorities force modifications to the process. Specifically, this paper will describe the processes that the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) has used for several years and how those processes have been customized to meet customer needs while staying robust and defensible. This paper will show how HEOMD uses these analyses results to assist with making informed portfolio investment decisions. The paper will also highlight which human exploration capabilities and technologies typically rank high regardless of the specific design reference mission. The paper will conclude by describing future capability and technology ranking activities that will continue o leverage subject matter experts (SME) input while also incorporating more model-based analysis.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗

NASA NTRS2017

Exploration Medical Capability System Engineering Introduction and Vision

Human exploration missions to beyond low Earth orbit destinations such as Mars will require more autonomous capability compared to current low Earth orbit operations. For the medical system, lack of consumable resupply, evacuation opportunities, and real-time ground support are key drivers toward greater autonomy. Recognition of the limited mission and vehicle resources available to carry out exploration missions motivates the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element's approach to enabling the necessary autonomy. The Element's work must integrate with the overall exploration mission and vehicle design efforts to successfully provide exploration medical capabilities. ExMC is applying systems engineering principles and practices to accomplish its integrative goals. This talk will briefly introduce the discipline of systems engineering and key points in its application to exploration medical capability development. It will elucidate technical medical system needs to be met by the systems engineering work, and the structured and integrative science and engineering approach to satisfying those needs, including the development of shared mental and qualitative models within and external to the human health and performance community. These efforts are underway to ensure relevancy to exploration system maturation and to establish medical system development that is collaborative with vehicle and mission design and engineering efforts.

Mindock, J.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Systems Engineering for Space Exploration Medical Capabilities

Human exploration missions to beyond low Earth orbit destinations such as Mars will present significant new challenges to crew health management during a mission compared to current low Earth orbit operations. For the medical system, lack of consumable resupply, evacuation opportunities, and real-time ground support are key drivers toward greater autonomy. Recognition of the limited mission and vehicle resources available to carry out exploration missions motivates the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element's approach to enabling the necessary autonomy. The Element's work must integrate with the overall exploration mission and vehicle design efforts to successfully provide exploration medical capabilities. ExMC is applying systems engineering principles and practices to accomplish its integrative goals. This paper discusses the structured and integrative approach that is guiding the medical system technical development. Assumptions for the required levels of care on exploration missions, medical system guiding principles, and a Concept of Operations are early products that capture and clarify stakeholder expectations. Mobel-Based Systems Engineering techniques are then applied to define medical system behavior and architecture. Interfaces to other flight and ground systems, and within the medical system are identified and defined. Initial requirements and traceability are established, which sets the stage for identification of future technology development needs. An early approach for verification and validation, taking advantage of terrestrial and near-Earth exploration system analogs, is also defined to further guide system planning and development.

Mindock, Jennifer↗