Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Transportation System”

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.

At least 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Game Changing: NASA's Space Launch System and Science Mission Design

NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is directing efforts to build the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and other important payloads far beyond Earth orbit (BEO). Its evolvable architecture will allow NASA to begin with Moon fly-bys and then go on to transport humans or robots to distant places such as asteroids and Mars. Designed to simplify spacecraft complexity, the SLS rocket will provide improved mass margins and radiation mitigation, and reduced mission durations. These capabilities offer attractive advantages for ambitious missions such as a Mars sample return, by reducing infrastructure requirements, cost, and schedule. For example, if an evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) were used for a proposed mission to investigate the Saturn system, a complicated trajectory would be required - with several gravity-assist planetary fly-bys - to achieve the necessary outbound velocity. The SLS rocket, using significantly higher C3 energies, can more quickly and effectively take the mission directly to its destination, reducing trip time and cost. As this paper will report, the SLS rocket will launch payloads of unprecedented mass and volume, such as "monolithic" telescopes and in-space infrastructure. Thanks to its ability to co-manifest large payloads, it also can accomplish complex missions in fewer launches. Future analyses will include reviews of alternate mission concepts and detailed evaluations of SLS figures of merit, helping the new rocket revolutionize science mission planning and design for years to come.

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Lunar Habitat Would Be Assembled In Space

Conceptual lunar habitat built inside external tank from National Space Transportation System (NSTS). Tank modified in low Earth orbit using existing structures and openings for access without compromising structural integrity. Designed for unmanned transport to orbit around Moon, and autonomous soft landing. Houses crew of 12 for 70 days between resupply missions.

King, Charles B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Baseline program

This assumed program was developed from several sources of information and is extrapolated over future decades using a set of reasonable assumptions based on incremental growth. The assumptions for the NASA baseline program are as follows: balanced emphasis in four domains; a constant level of activity; low to moderate real budget growth; maximum use of commonality; and realistic and practical technology development. The first domain is low Earth Orbit (LEO). Activities there are concentrated on the space station but extend on one side to Earth-pointing sensors for unmanned platforms and on the other to the launch and staging of unmanned solar system exploration missions. The second domain is geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and cislunar space. Activities here include all GEO missions and operations, both unmanned and manned, and all transport of materials and crews between LEO and the vicinity of the Moon. The third domain is the Moon itself. Lunar activities are to include both orbiting and landing missions; the landings may be either unmanned or manned. The last domain is Mars. Missions to Mars will initially be unmanned but they will eventually be manned. Program elements and descriptions are discussed as are critiques of the NASA baseline.

Roberts, Barney B.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Prediction and Warning of Transported Turbulence in Long-Haul Aircraft Operations

An aviation flight planning system is used for predicting and warning for intersection of flight paths with transported meteorological disturbances, such as transported turbulence and related phenomena. Sensed data and transmitted data provide real time and forecast data related to meteorological conditions. Data modelling transported meteorological disturbances are applied to the received transmitted data and the sensed data to use the data modelling transported meteorological disturbances to correlate the sensed data and received transmitted data. The correlation is used to identify transported meteorological disturbances source characteristics, and identify predicted transported meteorological disturbances trajectories from source to intersection with flight path in space and time. The correlated data are provided to a visualization system that projects coordinates of a point of interest (POI) in a selected point of view (POV) to displays the flight track and the predicted transported meteorological disturbances warnings for the flight crew.

Shipley, Scott T.↗
NASA NTRS2014

AVCOAT Density Characterization for Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) will transport four crew members to and from lunar-class orbital destinations. The first orbital Exploration Flight Test (EFT-1) is scheduled for December 2014 and will provide valuable data on several systems, including the heat shield. The heat shield material is AvcoatTM, a mid-density ablator. Specifically, the heat shield contains a fiberglass-phenolic honeycomb structure filled with an ablative epoxy novolac resin. Post-flight characterization of the EFT-1 thermal protection system will be conducted in order to study the material response and measure the char front of the material. Avcoat density profiling will be conducted to study three critical material zones: char, pyrolysis, and virgin states as a function of material depth. As part of a ground test campaign, Avcoat coupons are tested at the NASA Ames Research Center Arc Jet Complex. The test campaign is set forth to study material response based on environments, perform Avcoat material density characterization, and compare the char depths from the HEAT sensor and density profiling studies. These investigations will then be compared to flight data in order to improve upon TPS material response models.

AVCOAT↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Artemis Human Landing Systems

The Human Landing System (HLS) is the mode of transportation that will take astronauts to the lunar surface in NASA's Artemis lunar exploration program. On early missions, the astronauts will live inside the pressurized crew cabin portion of the lander for up to a week. The HLS program, based at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, is working closely with commercial partners to build innovative and technically advanced lunar landers, leveraging decades of human spaceflight experience and the speed of the commercial sector. In addition to the NextSTEP-2 Broad Agency Announcement Appendix H Option A contract that includes one uncrewed and one crewed demonstration mission to the lunar surface, the HLS program is taking steps to establish a regular cadence of crewed missions to the surface of the Moon. This paper will discuss the HLS program’s latest development activities.

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Artemis Human Landing Systems

The Human Landing System (HLS) is the mode of transportation that will take astronauts to the lunar surface in NASA's Artemis lunar exploration program. On early missions, the astronauts will live inside the pressurized crew cabin portion of the lander for up to a week. The HLS program, based at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, is working closely with commercial partners to build innovative and technically advanced lunar landers, leveraging decades of human spaceflight experience and the speed of the commercial sector. In addition to the NextSTEP-2 Broad Agency Announcement Appendix H Option A contract that includes one uncrewed and one crewed demonstration mission to the lunar surface, the HLS program is taking steps to establish a regular cadence of crewed missions to the surface of the Moon. This paper will discuss the HLS program’s latest development activities.

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRS2016

Investigation of Secondary Neutron Production in Large Space Vehicles for Deep Space

Future NASA missions will focus on deep space and Mars surface operations with large structures necessary for transportation of crew and cargo. In addition to the challenges of manufacturing these large structures, there are added challenges from the space radiation environment and its impacts on the crew, electronics, and vehicle materials. Primary radiation from the sun (solar particle events) and from outside the solar system (galactic cosmic rays) interact with materials of the vehicle and the elements inside the vehicle. These interactions lead to the primary radiation being absorbed or producing secondary radiation (primarily neutrons). With all vehicles, the high-energy primary radiation is of most concern. However, with larger vehicles, there is more opportunity for secondary radiation production, which can be significant enough to cause concern. In a previous paper, we embarked upon our first steps toward studying neutron production from large vehicles by validating our radiation transport codes for neutron environments against flight data. The following paper will extend the previous work to focus on the deep space environment and the resulting neutron flux from large vehicles in this deep space environment.

Rojdev, Kristina↗
NASA NTRS2008

Designing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Element and Integrating the Stack at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Fielding an integrated launch vehicle system entails many challenges, not the least of which is the fact that it has been over 30 years since the United States has developed a human-rated vehicle - the venerable Space Shuttle. Over time, whole generations of rocket scientists have passed through the aerospace community without the opportunity to perform such exacting, demanding, and rewarding work. However, with almost 50 years of experience leading the design, development, and end-to-end systems engineering and integration of complex launch vehicles, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center offers the in-house talent - both junior- and senior-level personnel - to shape a new national asset to meet the requirements for safe, reliable, and affordable space exploration solutions.' These personnel are housed primarily in Marshall's Engineering Directorate and are matrixed into the programs and projects that reside at the rocket center. Fortunately, many Apollo era and Shuttle engineers, as well as those who gained valuable hands-on experience in the 1990s by conducting technology demonstrator projects such as the Delta-Clipper Experimental Advanced, X-33, X-34, and X-37, as well as the short-lived Orbital Space Plane, work closely with industry partners to advance the nation's strategic capability for human access to space. Currently, only three spacefaring nations have this distinction, including the United States, Russia, and, more recently, China. The U.S. National Space Policy of2006 directs that NASA provide the means to travel to space, and the NASA Appropriations Act of2005 provided the initial funding to begin in earnest to replace the Shuttle after the International Space Station construction is complete in 20 IO? These and other strategic goals and objectives are documented in NASA's 2006 Strategic Plan.3 In 2005, a team of NASA aerospace experts conducted the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which recommended a two-vehicle approach to America's next space transportation system for missions to the International Space Station in the next decade and to explore the Moon and establish an outpost around the 2020 timeframe.4 Based on this extensive study, NASA selected the Ares I crew launch vehicle configuration and the heavy-lift Ares V cargo launch vehicle (fig 1). This paper will give an overview of NASA's approach to integrating the Ares I vehicle stack using capabilities and assets that are resident in Marshall's Engineering Directorate, working in partnership with other NASA Centers and the U.S. aerospace industry. It also will provide top-level details on the progress of the in-house design of the Ares I vehicle's upper stage element.

Lyles, Garry↗
NASA NTRS1982

Space operations center: Shuttle interaction study extension, executive summary

The Space Operations Center (SOC) is conceived as a permanent facility in low Earth orbit incorporating capabilities for space systems construction; space vehicle assembly, launching, recovery and servicing; and the servicing of co-orbiting satellites. The Shuttle Transportation System is an integral element of the SOC concept. It will transport the various elements of the SOC into space and support the assembly operation. Subsequently, it will regularly service the SOC with crew rotations, crew supplies, construction materials, construction equipment and components, space vehicle elements, and propellants and spare parts. The implications to the SOC as a consequence of the Shuttle supporting operations are analyzed. Programmatic influences associated with propellant deliveries, spacecraft servicing, and total shuttle flight operations are addressed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

HL-20 subsystem design

The NASA Langley Research Center has been developing a lifting-body configuration called the HL-20 for potential application as a personnel launch system orbiter that will provide the crew changeout at the Space Station Freedom. The objectives have been to provide an alternate manned access to space with a more cost-effective, efficient, reliable, and safer system for the routine transportation of people to LEO. The detailed study of this concept includes the subsystem design, flight software sizing, and mass properties that are discussed in this paper. The goals were to develop a subsystem complement to maximize operational efficiency with minimum development costs while using current technology. Subsystem selection and trade studies showed that current technology components will provide the required performance and operational effectiveness. Many of the selected components have Shuttle flight histories or considerable development heritage from other programs that will help minimize development costs.

Stone, H. W.↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Post Flight Presentation

The crews of STS-111 (Endeavour's crew: Ken Cockrell, Commander; Paul Lockhart, Pilot; Franklin Chang-Diaz, Mission Specialist (MS); Philippe Perrin, MS; International Space Station's (ISS) Expedition 4 crew: Yury Onufrienko, Commander; Daniel Bursch, Flight Engineer; Carl Walz, Flight Engineer; ISS Expedition 5 crew: Valery Korzun, Commander; Peggy Whitson, Flight Engineer; Sergei Treschev, Flight Engineer) narrate this video of highlights from the mission. It includes footage from each major portion of the mission: launch preparation, launch, entering orbit, opening payload bay doors, rendezvous of Endeavour with ISS, docking of the crafts and the meeting between Endeavour and Expedition 5 crews and the Expedition 4 crew, which Expedition 5 relieved. Docked operations include: crew transfer procedures, transfer of goods, EVA (extravehicular activity) prep, EVA performed by Chang-Diaz and Perrin which included installing a grapple fixture, mounting the Mobile Base System (MBS) to the Mobile Transporter (MT), and changing a joint on the station's Canadarm 2 robotic arm. The video ends with re-entry and landing of the shuttle.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Failure Tolerance, High Reliability and Correlated Failure History

In a half century of human spaceflight, NASA has continuously refined agency safety and reliability requirements in response to mission demands, critical failures, and technology development. Early spacecraft, including Mercury, Gemini and Apollo vehicles, were highly reliant on dissimilar redundancy and demonstrated test margins. Later programs, such as the reusable Space Transportation System (STS) and International Space Station (ISS), introduced probabilistic studies and isolated two-failure tolerance to improve robustness at the expense of added complexity. More recently, the Orion Multi-Program Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program adopted universal single-failure tolerance with two categorical exceptions; Zero-Failure Tolerant (0FT) and Design for Minimum Risk (DFMR) hardware. Failure tolerance variances are defined and managed in accordance with agency human-rating requirements, and require concurrence from program Technical Authorities (TA) as well as the MPCV Safety and Mission Assurance Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP). To understand and reaffirm standards applied to Apollo, Space Shuttle and Orion vehicles, Orion and Deep Space Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) representatives conducted accelerated research to compare unique safety and reliability criteria against ground and flight anomalies, based on information contained in post-mission reports and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) database. In some cases, high-profile failures and narrow escapes have reinforced decisions to maintain or adapt safety requirements. In others, empirical trends have highlighted the need for vigilance and innovative safety guidelines. Given the inability to achieve absolute compliance with evolving safety and reliability requirements, the team conducted a targeted review of DFMR and 0FT propulsion elements within the framework of changing system design, inspection, materials and process developments to formulate conclusions on technological maturity, failure density, and net changes in safety risk. Based on the aggregate performance of high-reliability and failure-tolerant systems, the authors have attempted to establish best practices and guidelines to inform future program decisions. On a somewhat cautionary note, this study is not intended to direct a universal set of requirements for future missions based on prior lessons learned. Spacecraft safety is a multi-variable problem, and attempts to mitigate past failures will not guarantee future success. However, this assessment offers a retrospective review of policy changes, implementation and effectiveness. In the future, NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and industry partners may benefit from a more robust correlation between requirements and performance, as space-faring nations work toward more challenging, complex and long-duration commercial and deep-space ventures.

Green, Carrie↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Evolution of the NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission Assurance Process

In 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low Earth orbit via the commercial (non-governmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA has been how to determine that the Commercial Provider's transportation system complies with programmatic safety requirements. The process used in this determination is the Safety Technical Review Board which reviews and approves provider submitted hazard reports. One significant product of the review is a set of hazard control verifications. In past NASA programs, 100% of these safety critical verifications were typically confirmed by NASA. The traditional Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) model does not support the nature of the CCP. To that end, NASA S&MA is implementing a Risk Based Assurance process to determine which hazard control verifications require NASA authentication. Additionally, a Shared Assurance Model is also being developed to efficiently use the available resources to execute the verifications.

Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRS2011

Estimating the Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission for Crew Spacecraft

Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2011, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project will have to meet the Agency Threshold requirements set forth by NASA. The reliability targets are currently several times higher than the Shuttle and possibly even the Soyuz. Can these targets be compared to the reliability of the Soyuz to determine whether they are realistic and achievable? To help answer these questions this paper will explore how to estimate the reliability of the Soyuz Launcher/Spacecraft system, compare it to the Space Shuttle, and its potential impacts for the future of manned spaceflight. Specifically it will look at estimating the Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) probability using historical data, reliability growth, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment techniques used to generate these numbers.

Lutomski, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Urban Aerial Mobility Networks using Amphibious Vertical Takeoff and Landing Vehicles

This study considers novel urban aerial mobility (UAM) networks that address some of the key operator and community acceptance challenges inherent in proposed UAM operations. This paper seeks to examine three possible approaches to improve operator and community acceptance – specifically targeting cost, safety, and noise. First, the conceptual design space will be examined for VTOL amphibious vehicle technologies, including the implications of onwater versus in-flight time/speed. Second, the implications of minimizing community overflights by flying over-water will be examined. Third, the implications of the partial use of onwater, or near-shore/littoral, vertiports on UAM network performance will be examined. This study considers an alternate design trade space for urban aerial mobility systems. A large number of cities in the United States are located near or surround large bodies of water. Many of these same cities are considered to be candidates for metropolitan aerial transportation systems so as to moderate the impact of urban ground-transportation congestion. This paper will expand discussion and study of notional amphibious VTOL vehicles. There is nothing particularly new with regards to helicopters with amphibious takeoff and landing capability. For example, light rotorcraft have been outfitted with pontoons since the 1950s. Larger utility helicopters – used for carrying offshore oil-rig crew – have been designed, with varying degrees of success, to emergency land in rough waters in case of onboard mechanical system failures. The unique difference for the proposed amphibious UAM vehicles, as compared to these earlier amphibious rotorcraft, is that water operation is the norm rather than the exception and that, further, the water-born operation (and design) of such vehicles can be optimized to yield significant economic and operational benefits over solely UAM land-based stations and operations. Various different amphibious UAM networks will be discussed. A first-order set of analyses – employing novel mission metrics – is presented in this paper that will examine the operational performance of these amphibious networks. In particular, amphibious operations might address critical safety and community acceptance issues. An examination of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic characteristics of amphibious VTOL UAM vehicles will be presented in this paper. One possible conceptual design for an amphibious UAM vehicle is a hybrid synchropter/hydroplane vehicle. As interest in urban aerial mobility grows, it is worthwhile to consider whether or not amphibious vertical takeoff and landing vehicles can play an important role in providing such mobility.

Urban Aerial Mobility↗
NASA NTRS1990

Summary of the industry/NASA/FAA workshop on philosophy of automation: Promises and realities

Issues of flight deck automation are multi-faceted and complex. The rapid introduction of advanced computer based technology on to the flight deck of transport category aircraft has had considerable impact on both aircraft operations and the flight crew. As part of NASA's responsibility to facilitate an active exchange of ideas and information between members of the aviation community, an Industry/NASA/FAA workshop was conducted in August 1988. One of the most important conclusions to emerge from the workshop was that the introduction of automation has clearly benefited aviation and has substantially improved the operational safety and efficiency of our air transport system. For example, one carrier stated that they have been flying the Boeing 767 (one of the first aircraft to employ substantial automation) since 1982, and they have never had an accident or incident resulting in damage to the aircraft. Notwithstanding its benefits, many issues associated with the design, certification, and operation of automated aircraft were identified. For example two key conceptual issues were the need for the crew to have a thorough understanding of the system and the importance of defining the pilot's role. With respect to certification, a fundamental issue is the lack of comprehensive human factors requirements in the current regulations. Operational considerations, which have been a factor in incidents involving automation, were also cited. Viewgraphs used in the presentation are given.

Norman, Susan D.↗