SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Contingency planning”

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.

362 records · Page 21

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis program established the goal to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, but that is only the beginning of the program. Artemis plans to move towards a sustainable phase, with four crew living on the lunar surface for roughly 30-day annual missions, operating from a Pressurized Rover (PR) and a Surface Habitat (SH). The crew will split up – two living and operating from the PR and the others in the SH, perhaps swapping places halfway through the surface mission. There is a significant degree of maturity surrounding PR operations due to the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies field tests from 2007-2011. However, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding activity in the SH, with anecdotal speculation among some Artemis lunar surface engineers that the SH crew might not be fully utilized. Contrary to this belief, there is evidence in US human spaceflight history that the SH crew may instead be extremely busy. In particular, portions of the STS-94 Microgravity Science Lab mission demonstrate a science-based use case for crew activity in the SH. Fifteen Spacelab missions (not including STS-83, which was terminated early due to a fuel cell problem and reflown as STS-94) and eight Spacehab missions used the previously mentioned modules as science labs to expand the science capability of shuttle orbital missions, most flown prior to the assembly of the International Space Station. STS-94 is selected as an example of these flights. STS-94 was a 15.7-day mission with a 7-person crew. The crew operated in split 12-hour shifts, enabling 24-hour science operations. STS-94 used the space shuttle Columbia with the Spacelab module and Extended Duration Orbiter pallet in the cargo bay. The STS-94 physical science investigations were intended to explore various physical aspects of microgravity. These same investigations can be conducted on the Moon to explore 1/6 gravity. The Spacelab module was outfitted with several key facilities to enable this research: Large Isothermal Furnace, Combustion Module-1, Droplet Combustion Experiment, EXPRESS Rack, TEMPUS, Gravity Measurement Devices, and Middeck Glovebox. The current reference concept for the SH is a hybrid inflatable in a vertical orientation. Fairly typical of hybrid inflatables, the SH has an aluminum core pressurized section and a larger inflatable volume, in this case attaching to the top of the core. Two crew will live in the SH at a time, though four can briefly occupy the habitat, such as for contingency or handover activities. This paper will discuss use of the STS-94 physical science equipment in the SH and options for the architectural layout of a resulting physics laboratory. It will also discuss how this laboratory may accompany other science facilities such as biology, human research, and geology. The person hours used by the STS-94 crew to conduct physical science research will be estimated and then mapped to a two-person SH crew, making it possible to determine how many days are required in the SH to complete the lunar gravity physical science investigations at varying levels of crew availability.

STS-94↗

NASA NTRS2010

Design and Implementation of the Automated Rendezvous Targeting Algorithms for Orion

The Orion vehicle will be designed to perform several rendezvous missions: rendezvous with the ISS in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), rendezvous with the EDS/Altair in LEO, a contingency rendezvous with the ascent stage of the Altair in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) and a contingency rendezvous in LLO with the ascent and descent stage in the case of an aborted lunar landing. Therefore, it is not difficult to realize that each of these scenarios imposes different operational, timing, and performance constraints on the GNC system. To this end, a suite of on-board guidance and targeting algorithms have been designed to meet the requirement to perform the rendezvous independent of communications with the ground. This capability is particularly relevant for the lunar missions, some of which may occur on the far side of the moon. This paper will describe these algorithms which are designed to be structured and arranged in such a way so as to be flexible and able to safely perform a wide variety of rendezvous trajectories. The goal of the algorithms is not to merely fly one specific type of canned rendezvous profile. Conversely, it was designed from the start to be general enough such that any type of trajectory profile can be flown.(i.e. a coelliptic profile, a stable orbit rendezvous profile, and a expedited LLO rendezvous profile, etc) all using the same rendezvous suite of algorithms. Each of these profiles makes use of maneuver types which have been designed with dual goals of robustness and performance. They are designed to converge quickly under dispersed conditions and they are designed to perform many of the functions performed on the ground today. The targeting algorithms consist of a phasing maneuver (NC), an altitude adjust maneuver (NH), and plane change maneuver (NPC), a coelliptic maneuver (NSR), a Lambert targeted maneuver, and several multiple-burn targeted maneuvers which combine one of more of these algorithms. The derivation and implementation of each of these algorithms will be discussed in detail, as well and the Rendezvous Targeting "wrapper" which will sequentially tie them all together into a single onboard targeting tool which can produce a final integrated rendezvous trajectory. In a similar fashion, the various guidance modes available for flying out each of these maneuvers will be discussed as well. This paradigm of having the onboard guidance & targeting capability described above is different than the way the Space Shuttle has operated thus far. As a result, a discussion of these differences in terms of operations and ground and crew intervention will also be discussed. However, the general framework of how the mission designers on the ground first perform all mission design and planning functions, and then uplink that burn plan to the vehicle ensures that the ground will be involved to ensure safety and reliability. The only real difference is which of these functions will be done onboard vs. on the ground as done currently. Finally, this paper will describe the performance of each of these algorithms individually as well as the entire suite of algorithms as applied to the Orion ISS and EDS/Altair rendezvous missions in LEO. These algorithms have been incorporated in both a Linear Covariance environment and a Monte Carlo environment and the results of these dispersion analyses will be presented in the paper as well.

DSouza, Christopher↗