SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
We have undertaken a systematic study to identify a sample of massive protostellar candidates. We have now started a pilot program to observe these objects by means of millimeter interferometry.
The last few years have seen a rapid growth in observations aimed at identifying intermediate and high-mass star forming sites in a wide range of evolutionary stages ranging from Hot Cores to ultracompact regions, to proto-Ae/Be stars.
The top-level architecture to accomplish NASA's Vision for Space Exploration is to use Lunar missions and systems not just as an end in themselves, but also as testbeds for the more ambitious goals of Human Mars Exploration (HME). This approach means that Lunar missions and systems are most likely going to be targeted for (Lunar) polar missions, and also for long-duration (months) surface stays. This overacting theme creates basic top-level requirements for any next-generation lander system: 1) Long duration stays: a) Multiple landers in close proximity; b) Pinpoint landings for "surface rendezvous"; c) Autonomous landing of pre-positioned assets; and d) Autonomous Hazard Detection and Avoidance. 2) Polar and deep-crater landings (dark); 3) Common/extensible systems for Moon and Mars, crew and cargo. These requirements pose challenging technology and capability needs. Compare and contrast: 4) Apollo: a) 1 km landing accuracy; b) Lunar near-side (well imaged and direct-to-Earth com. possible); c) Lunar equatorial (landing trajectories offer best navigation support from Earth); d) Limited lighting conditions; e) Significant ground-in-the-loop operations; 5) Lunar Access: a) 10-100m landing precision; b) "Anywhere" access includes polar (potentially poor nav. support from Earth) and far side (poor gravity and imaging; no direct-to-Earth com); c) "Anytime" access includes any lighting condition (including dark); d) Full autonomous landing capability; e) Extensible design for tele-operation or operator-in-the-loop; and f) Minimal ground support to reduce operations costs. The Lunar Access program objectives, therefore, are to: a) Develop a baseline Lunar Precision Landing System (PLS) design to enable pinpoint "anywhere, anytime" landings; b) landing precision 10m-100m; c) Any LAT, LON; and d) Any lighting condition; This paper will characterize basic features of the next generation Lunar landing system, including trajectory types, sensor suite options and a reference system architecture.
By mass, thermal plasma dominates near-earth space and strongly influences the transport of energy and mass into the earth's atmosphere. It is proposed to play an important role in modifying the strength of space weather storms by its presence in regions of magnetic reconnection in the dayside magnetopause and in the near to mid-magnetotail. Ionospheric-origin thermal plasma also represents the most significant potential loss of atmospheric mass from our planet over geological time. Knowledge of the loss of convected thermal plasma into the solar wind versus its recirculation across high latitudes and through the magnetospheric flanks into the magnetospheric tail will enable determination of the mass balance for this mass-dominant component of the Geospace system and of its influence on global magnetospheric processes that are critical to space weather prediction and hence to the impact of space processes on human technology in space and on Earth. Our proposed concept addresses this basic issue of Geospace dynamics by imaging thermal He(+) ions in extreme ultraviolet light with an instrument on the lunar surface. The concept is derived from the highly successful Extreme Ultraviolet imager (EUV) flown on the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft. From the lunar surface an advanced EUV imager is anticipated to have much higher sensitivity, lower background noise, and higher communication bandwidth back to Earth. From the near-magnetic equatorial location on the lunar surface, such an imager would be ideally located to follow thermal He(+) ions to high latitudes, into the magnetospheric flanks, and into the magnetotail.
Following the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003, a major effort commenced to develop a better understanding of debris impacts and their effect on the Space Shuttle subsystems. An initiative to develop and validate physics-based computer models to predict damage from such impacts was a fundamental component of this effort. To develop the models it was necessary to physically characterize Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) and various debris materials which could potentially shed on ascent and impact the Orbiter RCC leading edges. The validated models enabled the launch system community to use the impact analysis software LS DYNA to predict damage by potential and actual impact events on the Orbiter leading edge and nose cap thermal protection systems. Validation of the material models was done through a three-level approach: fundamental tests to obtain independent static and dynamic material model properties of materials of interest, sub-component impact tests to provide highly controlled impact test data for the correlation and validation of the models, and full-scale impact tests to establish the final level of confidence for the analysis methodology. This paper discusses the second level subcomponent test program in detail and its application to the LS DYNA model validation process. The level two testing consisted of over one hundred impact tests in the NASA Glenn Research Center Ballistic Impact Lab on 6 by 6 in. and 6 by 12 in. flat plates of RCC and evaluated three types of debris projectiles: BX 265 External Tank foam, ice, and PDL 1034 External Tank foam. These impact tests helped determine the level of damage generated in the RCC flat plates by each projectile. The information obtained from this testing validated the LS DYNA damage prediction models and provided a certain level of confidence to begin performing analysis for full-size RCC test articles for returning NASA to flight with STS 114 and beyond.
The lunar surface habitat will serve as the astronauts' home on the moon, providing a pressurized facility for all crew living functions and serving as the primary location for a number of crew work functions. Adequate volume is required for each of these functions in addition to that devoted to housing the habitat systems and crew consumables. The time constraints of the LAT-2 schedule precluded the Habitation Team from conducting a complete "bottoms-up" design of a lunar surface habitation system from which to derive true volumetric requirements. The objective of this analysis was to quickly derive an estimated total pressurized volume and pressurized net habitable volume per crewmember for a lunar surface habitat, using a principled, methodical approach in the absence of a detailed design. Five "heuristic methods" were used: historical spacecraft volumes, human/spacecraft integration standards and design guidance, Earth-based analogs, parametric "sizing" tools, and conceptual point designs. Estimates for total pressurized volume, total habitable volume, and volume per crewmember were derived using these methods. All method were found to provide some basis for volume estimates, but values were highly variable across a wide range, with no obvious convergence of values. Best current assumptions for required crew volume were provided as a range. Results of these analyses and future work are discussed.
Airlocks for lunar Extravehicular Activity (EVA) will be significantly different than previous designs. Until now, airlocks operated infrequently and only in the "clean" weightless environment, but lunar airlocks are planned to be used much more often (every other day) in a dusty, gravity environment. Concepts for airlocks were analyzed by the NASA, JSC Habitability Focus Element during recent lunar outpost studies. Three airlock types were identified; an Airlock (AL) or independent pressure vessel with one hatch to the outside and the other to the Habitat. A Suitlock (SL) which shares a pressure bulkhead with the Habitat allowing rear-entry suits to remain on the dusty side while the crew enters/exits the Habitat. The third option is the Suitport (SP) which offers direct access from the habitable volume into an externally mounted suit. The SP concept was not compared, however between the AL and SL, the AL was favored.
This slide presentation reviews NASA's process for prioritizing technology requirements where there is a competitive environment. The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) project is used to exemplify the process. The ISPT project focuses on the mid level Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for development. These are TRL's 4 through 6, (i.e. Technology Development and Technology Demonstration. The objective of the planning activity is to identify the current most likely date each technology is needed and create ISPT technology development schedules based on these dates. There is a minimum of 4 years between flight and pacing mission. The ISPT Project needed to identify the "pacing mission" for each technology in order to provide funding for each area. Graphic representations show the development of the process. A matrix shows which missions are currently receiving pull from the both the Solar System Exploration and the Sun-Solar System Connection Roadmaps. The timeframes of the pacing missions technologies are shown for various types of propulsion. A pacing mission that was in the near future serves to increase the priority for funding. Adaptations were made when budget reductions precluded the total implementation of the plan.
A work envelope has been defined for weightless Extravehicular Activity (EVA) based on the Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), but there is no equivalent for planetary operations. The weightless work envelope is essential for planning all EVA tasks because it determines the location of removable parts, making sure they are within reach and visibility of the suited crew member. In addition, using the envelope positions the structural hard points for foot restraints that allow placing both hands on the job and provides a load path for reacting forces. EVA operations are always constrained by time. Tasks are carefully planned to ensure the crew has enough breathing oxygen, cooling water, and battery power. Planning first involves computers using a virtual work envelope to model tasks, next suited crew members in a simulated environment refine the tasks. For weightless operations, this process is well developed, but planetary EVA is different and no work envelope has been defined. The primary difference between weightless and planetary work envelopes is gravity. It influences anthropometry, horizontal and vertical mobility, and reaction load paths and introduces effort into doing "overhead" work. Additionally, the use of spacesuits other than the EMU, and their impacts on range of motion, must be taken into account. This paper presents the analysis leading to a concept for a planetary EVA work envelope with emphasis on lunar operations. There is some urgency in creating this concept because NASA has begun building and testing development hardware for the lunar surface, including rovers, habitats and cargo off-loading equipment. Just as with microgravity operations, a lunar EVA work envelope is needed to guide designers in the formative stages of the program with the objective of avoiding difficult and costly rework.
This paper identifies potential risk reduction, cost savings and programmatic procurement benefits of a Mars Forward Lunar Surface System architecture that provides commonality or evolutionary development paths for lunar surface system elements applicable to Mars surface systems. The objective of this paper is to identify the potential benefits for incorporating a Mars Forward development strategy into the planned Project Constellation Lunar Surface System Architecture. The benefits include cost savings, technology readiness, and design validation of systems that would be applicable to lunar and Mars surface systems. The paper presents a survey of previous lunar and Mars surface systems design concepts and provides an assessment of previous conclusions concerning those systems in light of the current Project Constellation Exploration Architectures. The operational requirements for current Project Constellation lunar and Mars surface system elements are compared and evaluated to identify the potential risk reduction strategies that build on lunar surface systems to reduce the technical and programmatic risks for Mars exploration. Risk reduction for rapidly evolving technologies is achieved through systematic evolution of technologies and components based on Moore's Law superimposed on the typical NASA systems engineering project development "V-cycle" described in NASA NPR 7120.5. Risk reduction for established or slowly evolving technologies is achieved through a process called the Mars-Ready Platform strategy in which incremental improvements lead from the initial lunar surface system components to Mars-Ready technologies. The potential programmatic benefits of the Mars Forward strategy are provided in terms of the transition from the lunar exploration campaign to the Mars exploration campaign. By utilizing a sequential combined procurement strategy for lunar and Mars exploration surface systems, the overall budget wedges for exploration systems are reduced and the costly technological development gap between the lunar and Mars programs can be eliminated. This provides a sustained level of technological competitiveness as well as maintaining a stable engineering and manufacturing capability throughout the entire duration of Project Constellation.
With 1 rover, 2 astronauts and 3 days, the Apollo 17 Mission covered over 30 km, setup 10 scientific experiments and returned 110 kg of samples. This is a lot of science in a short time and the inspiration for a barebones, return-to-the-Moon strategy called Daylight Exploration. The Daylight Exploration approach poses an answer to the question, What could the Apollo crew have done with more time and today s robotics? In contrast to more ambitious and expensive strategies that create outposts then rely on pressurized rovers to drive to the science sites, Daylight Exploration is a low-overhead approach conceived to land near the scientific site, conduct Apollo-like exploration then leave before the sun goes down. A key motivation behind Daylight Exploration is cost reduction, but it does not come at the expense of scientific exploration. As a goal, Daylight Exploration provides access to the top 10 science sites by using the best capabilities of human and robotic exploration. Most science sites are within an equatorial band of 26 degrees latitude and on the Moon, at the equator, the day is 14 Earth days long; even more important, the lunar night is 14 days long. Human missions are constrained to 12 days because the energy storage systems required to operate during the lunar night adds mass, complexity and cost. In addition, short missions are beneficial because they require fewer consumables, do not require an airlock, reduce radiation exposure, minimize the dwell-time for the ascent and orbiting propulsion systems and allow a low-mass, campout accommodations. Key to Daylight Exploration is the use of piloted rovers used as tele-operated science platforms. Rovers are launched before or with the crew, and continue to operate between crew visits analyzing and collecting samples during the lunar daylight
This paper describes a comprehensive lunar exploration architecture developed by Marshall Space Flight Center's Advanced Concepts Office that features a science-based surface exploration strategy and a transportation architecture that uses two launches of a heavy lift launch vehicle to deliver human and robotic mission systems to the moon. The principal advantage of the dual launch lunar mission strategy is the reduced cost and risk resulting from the development of just one launch vehicle system. The dual launch lunar mission architecture may also enhance opportunities for commercial and international partnerships by using expendable launch vehicle services for robotic missions or development of surface exploration elements. Furthermore, this architecture is particularly suited to the integration of robotic and human exploration to maximize science return. For surface operations, an innovative dual-mode rover is presented that is capable of performing robotic science exploration as well as transporting human crew conducting surface exploration. The dual-mode rover can be deployed to the lunar surface to perform precursor science activities, collect samples, scout potential crew landing sites, and meet the crew at a designated landing site. With this approach, the crew is able to evaluate the robotically collected samples to select the best samples for return to Earth to maximize the scientific value. The rovers can continue robotic exploration after the crew leaves the lunar surface. The transportation system for the dual launch mission architecture uses a lunar-orbit-rendezvous strategy. Two heavy lift launch vehicles depart from Earth within a six hour period to transport the lunar lander and crew elements separately to lunar orbit. In lunar orbit, the crew transfer vehicle docks with the lander and the crew boards the lander for descent to the surface. After the surface mission, the crew returns to the orbiting transfer vehicle for the return to the Earth. This paper describes a complete transportation architecture including the analysis of transportation element options and sensitivities including: transportation element mass to surface landed mass; lander propellant options; and mission crew size. Based on this analysis, initial design concepts for the launch vehicle, crew module and lunar lander are presented. The paper also describes how the dual launch lunar mission architecture would fit into a more general overarching human space exploration philosophy that would allow expanded application of mission transportation elements for missions beyond the Earth-moon realm.
The present invention is a space launch system and method to propel a payload bearing craft into earth orbit. The invention has two, or preferably, three stages. The upper stage has rocket engines capable of carrying a payload to orbit and provides the capability of releasably attaching to the lower, or preferably, middle stage. Similar to the lower stage, the middle stage is a reusable booster stage that employs all air breathing engines, is recoverable, and can be turned-around in a short time between missions.
Historically, less than 20 percent of crew time related to extravehicular activity (EVA) is spent on productive external work.1 A single-person spacecraft with 90 percent efficiency provides productive new capabilities for maintaining the International Space Station (ISS), exploring asteroids, and servicing telescopes or satellites. With suits, going outside to inspect, service or repair a spacecraft is time-consuming, requiring pre-breathe time, donning a fitted space suit, and pumping down an airlock. For ISS, this is between 12.5 and 16 hours for each EVA, not including translation and work-site set up. The work is physically demanding requiring a day of rest between EVAs and often results in suit-induced trauma with frequent injury to astronauts fingers2. For maximum mobility, suits use a low pressure, pure oxygen atmosphere. This represents a fire hazard and requires pre-breathing to reduce the risk of decompression sickness (bends). With virtually no gravity, humans exploring asteroids cannot use legs for walking. The Manned Maneuvering Unit offers a propulsive alternative however it is no longer in NASA s flight inventory. FlexCraft is a single person spacecraft operating at the same cabin atmosphere as its host so there is no risk of the bends and no pre-breathing. This allows rapid, any-time access to space for repeated short or long EVAs by different astronauts. Integrated propulsion eliminates hand-over-hand translation or having another crew member operate the robotic arm. The one-size-fits-all FlexCraft interior eliminates the suit part inventory and crew time required to fit all astronauts. With a shirtsleeve cockpit, conventional displays and controls are used and because the work is not strenuous no rest days are required. Furthermore, there is no need for hand tools because manipulators are equipped with force multiplying end-effectors that can deliver the precise torque for the job.
A Deep Space Habitat (DSH) is the crew habitation module designed for long duration missions. Although humans have lived in space for many years, there has never been a habitat beyond low-Earth-orbit. As part of the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Habitation Project, a study was conducted to develop weightless habitat configurations using systems based on International Space Station (ISS) designs. Two mission sizes are described for a 4-crew 60-day mission, and a 4-crew 500-day mission using standard Node, Lab, and Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) sized elements, and ISS derived habitation systems. These durations were selected to explore the lower and upper bound for the exploration missions under consideration including a range of excursions within the Earth-Moon vicinity, near earth asteroids, and Mars orbit. Current methods for sizing the mass and volume for habitats are based on mathematical models that assume the construction of a new single volume habitat. In contrast to that approach, this study explored the use of ISS designs based on existing hardware where available and construction of new hardware based on ISS designs where appropriate. Findings included a very robust design that could be reused if the DSH were assembled and based at the ISS and a transportation system were provided for its return after each mission. Mass estimates were found to be higher than mathematical models due primarily to the use of multiple ISS modules instead of one new large module, but the maturity of the designs using flight qualified systems have potential for improved cost, schedule, and risk benefits.
A Deep Space Habitat (DSH) is the crew habitation module designed for long duration missions. Although humans have lived in space for many years, there has never been a habitat beyond low-Earth-orbit. As part of the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Habitation Project, a study was conducted to develop weightless habitat configurations using systems based on International Space Station (ISS) designs. Two mission sizes are described for a 4-crew 60-day mission, and a 4-crew 500-day mission using standard Node, Lab, and Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) sized elements, and ISS derived habitation systems. These durations were selected to explore the lower and upper bound for the exploration missions under consideration including a range of excursions within the Earth-Moon vicinity, near earth asteroids, and Mars orbit. Current methods for sizing the mass and volume for habitats are based on mathematical models that assume the construction of a new single volume habitat. In contrast to that approach, this study explored the use of ISS designs based on existing hardware where available and construction of new hardware based on ISS designs where appropriate. Findings included a very robust design that could be reused if the DSH were assembled and based at the ISS and a transportation system were provided for its return after each mission. Mass estimates were found to be higher than mathematical models due primarily to the use of multiple ISS modules instead of one new large module, but the maturity of the designs using flight qualified systems have potential for improved cost, schedule, and risk benefits.
Historically, less than 20 percent of crew time related to extravehicular activity (EVA) is spent on productive external work. For planetary operations space suits are still the logical choice; however for safe and rapid access to the weightless environment, spacecraft offer compelling advantages. FlexCraft, a concept for a single-person spacecraft, enables any-time access to space for short or long excursions by different astronauts. For the International Space Station (ISS), going outside is time-consuming, requiring pre-breathing, donning a fitted space suit, and pumping down an airlock. For each ISS EVA this is between 12.5 and 16 hours. FlexCraft provides immediate access to space because it operates with the same cabin atmosphere as its host. Furthermore, compared to the space suit pure oxygen environment, a mixed gas atmosphere lowers the fire risk and allows use of conventional materials and systems. For getting to the worksite, integral propulsion replaces hand-over-hand translation or having another crew member operate the robotic arm. This means less physical exertion and more time at the work site. Possibly more important, in case of an emergency, FlexCraft can return from the most distant point on ISS in less than a minute. The one-size-fits-all FlexCraft means no on-orbit inventory of parts or crew time required to fit all astronauts. With a shirtsleeve cockpit, conventional displays and controls are used, there is no suit trauma and because the work is not strenuous, no rest days are required. Furthermore, there is no need to collect hand tools because manipulators are equipped with force multiplying end-effectors that can deliver the precise torque for the job. FlexCraft is an efficient solution for asteroid exploration allowing all crew to use one vehicle with no risk of contamination. And, because FlexCraft is a vehicle, its design offers better radiation and micro-meteoroid protection than space suits.
This paper introduces a concept for a single-person spacecraft and presents plans for flying a low-cost, robotic demonstration mission. Called FlexCraft, the vehicle integrates propulsion and robotics into a small spacecraft that enables rapid, shirt-sleeve access to space. It can be flown by astronauts or tele-operated and is equipped with interchangeable manipulators used for maintaining the International Space Station (ISS), exploring asteroids, and servicing telescopes or satellites. Most FlexCraft systems are verified using ground facilities; however, a test in the weightless environment is needed to assess propulsion and manipulator performance. For this, a simplified, unmanned, version of FlexCraft is flown on a low-cost launch vehicle to a 350 km circular orbit. After separation from the upper stage, the vehicle returns to a target box mounted on the stage testing the propulsion and control capability. The box is equipped with manipulator test items that are representative of tasks performed on ISS, asteroid missions, or for satellites servicing. Nominal and off-nominal operations are conducted over 3 days then the vehicle re-enters the atmosphere without becoming a debris hazard. From concept to management to operations, the FlexCraft demonstration is designed to be low cost project that is launched within three years. This is possible using a simplified test configuration that eliminates nine systems unique to the operational version and by designing-to-availability. For example, the propulsion system is the same as the Manned Maneuvering Unit because it capable, simple, human-rated and all components or equivalent parts are available. A description of the launch vehicle options, mission operations, configuration, and demonstrator subsystems is presented.