Engineering PapersSearch

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “LUNAR COMMUNICATION”

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 91 records · Page 5

Lunar Optical Communications

Numerous studies have shown that NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) is woefully inadequate to support the current pace of space exploration. Proposals are on the table for extensive infrastructure build-out using RF communications, which is ultimately bandwidth constrained. Optical communication offers unregulated, near-infinite bandwidth that can easily support the needs of humans at the Moon and beyond. Although not part of the proposed lunar network architecture, optical communication systems should be considered; these systems are operational now, quickly proliferating near Earth space (e.g. StarLink), and offer very high bandwidths.

lunar

3GPP Telecommunications Technology on the Moon

Under NASA’s Artemis program, NASA is planning to send astronauts back to the Moon in the next couple of years. Near term missions will be analogous but much more sophisticated versions of the last couple of Apollo missions. However, unlike Apollo, this time NASA intends to put the infrastructure in place to support long term human presence and eventual industrialization of the Moon. To make this vision a reality, NASA plans to collaborate with commercial and international partners as much as possible as opposed to developing, building, and operating equipment on its own. Lunar infrastructure will eventually be built over time by many organizations, public and private, to support sustained human exploration, science, and industrial activities. Obviously, this vision for the future will be impossible without a robust lunar communications and navigation system that can support many users with varying degrees of services. On Earth, most people are very familiar with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) 5G mobile telecommunications technology. NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate and NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation office would like to see a lunar communications and navigation network with similar capabilities to the cellular communication networks most of us enjoy today. Building such a network will require participation by many organizations. This paper will provide an overview of NASA’s interest in using 5G and beyond on the lunar surface; it will also describe current work based on 3GPP standards within NASA or funded by NASA, such as Nokia’s upcoming Tipping Point demonstration of 4G / LTE on the lunar surface.

Bernard Edwards

Demonstration of GaN HEMT MMIC High-Power Amplifier for Lunar Proximity Communications

In this paper, we demonstrate a high efficiency, Ka-band (23.15 to 23.55 GHz) GaN HEMT MMIC based single-ended high power amplifier (HPA). The measured Pout, Gain, PAE, RMS EVM for Offset-QPSK, 8PSK, 16APSK, and 32APSK waveforms, 3rd-order IMD products, noise figure, and phase noise are presented. The results indicate that the saturated output power (P sat ) and the small signal Gain are on the order of 38.8 dBm (7.6 W) and 29.3 dB, respectively. The PAE at Psat is 20.0%. At the 1-dB compression point, the RMS EVM and the out-of-band spectral regrowth are less than 6% and –26 dBc respectively, for all four waveforms. Additionally, the spectrum is in compliance with the NTIA mask requirements for all four waveforms. The output 3rd-order intercept point (OIP3) is on the order of 42 dBm. The noise figure is less than 9.5 dB. The SSB phase noise spectral density is compliant with the envelope defined by the MIL-STD-188-164C. The HPA can enable proximity forward links between the orbiting Gateway/relay satellites and the lunar surface elements and cross links between relay satellites.

Ka-band

Identifying Cognitive Capabilities Required for Optimal Exploration EVA Performance: A Cognitive Task Analysis

BACKGROUND Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future exploration EVA on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to EVA currently conducted from the International Space Station (ISS). Decrements in cognitive performance present an important risk to crew safety during exploration mission class EVA. Yet there is currently insufficient characterization of the cognitive capabilities required prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is unclear which cognitive domains are most important for conducting mission critical decisions with crew safety implications. To address this gap, we conducted a cognitive task analysis of exploration EVA to characterize the cognitive capabilities, critical safety decisions, and contributing factors (e.g., lunar communications delay) important to monitor for optimal performance in future exploration EVA. This cognitive task analysis was conducted through interviews with astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA research and operations. Interviews focused on exploration EVA and elicited feedback on the cognitive capabilities required for specific EVA tasks and subtasks. The information from this cognitive task analysis will help close the gap in our understanding of the key cognitive capabilities required for safe decision-making during exploration mission class EVA on the Moon and Mars. METHOD We used an applied cognitive task analysis method1 over the course of interviews with a total of 15 NASA astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA. Each interview was led by a scientist with expertise in cognitive neuroscience from the Behavioral Health & Performance (BHP) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center. Notes were taken by a research coordinator in the BHP Laboratory and interviews were recorded on Microsoft Teams to ensure the accuracy of notetaking. In the first interview protocol, participants were asked about the specific tasks and cognitive demands associated with EVA. This provided a high-level overview of the steps involved in the major tasks conducted during exploration EVA, as well as which of the steps require the most cognitive skill. Next, participants completed a knowledge audit, which employs a set of probes designed to describe types of domain knowledge of skill and elicit appropriate examples. In the second interview protocol, completed with a separate set of subject matter experts, interviewees were asked to complete a simulated incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) scenario2, which provided specific context that allowed probing around relevant issues such as situational awareness and potential errors. Experts were then asked to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) underlying each EVA task and to provide ratings on the importance and cognitive demand of each KSA. Finally, participants also described the most likely and consequential critical safety incidents related to decrements in cognitive performance during exploration EVA and assessed the impact of lunar communication delay on cognitive performance. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Interviews for this cognitive task analysis are nearly complete and results will be presented in full at IWS 2025. Results will include a summary of all expert ratings of EVA tasks and subtasks, qualitative summaries of content from each interview part, and a discussion of future directions for products addressing cognitive performance monitoring and cognitive domain mapping in exploration EVA.

S R Anderson

Simulation of Lunar Surface Communications Network Exploration Scenarios

Simulations and modeling of surface-based communications networks provides a rapid and cost effective means of requirement analysis, protocol assessments, and tradeoff studies. Robust testing in especially important for exploration systems, where the cost of deployment is high and systems cannot be easily replaced or repaired. However, simulation of the envisioned exploration networks cannot be achieved using commercial off the shelf network simulation software. Models for the nonstandard, non-COTS protocols used aboard space systems are not readily available. This paper will address the simulation of realistic scenarios representative of the activities which will take place on the surface of the Moon, including selection of candidate network architectures, and the development of an integrated simulation tool using OPNET modeler capable of faithfully modeling those communications scenarios in the variable delay, dynamic surface environments. Scenarios for exploration missions, OPNET development, limitations, and simulations results will be provided and discussed.

Linsky, Thomas W.

Fully Printed, Flexible, Phased Array Antenna for Lunar Surface Communication

NASAs future exploration missions focus on the manned exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, which will rely heavily on the development of a reliable communications infrastructure from planetary surface-to-surface, surface-to-orbit, and back to Earth. Flexible antennas are highly desired in many scenarios. Active phased array antennas (active PAAs) with distributed control and processing electronics at the surface of an antenna aperture offer numerous advantages for radar communications. Large-area active PAAs on flexible substrates are of particular interest in NASA s space radars due to their efficient inflatable package that can be rolled up during transportation and deployed in space. Such an inflatable package significantly reduces stowage volume and mass. Because of these performance and packaging advantages, large-area inflatable active PAAs are highly desired in NASA s surface-to-orbit and surface-to-relay communications. To address the issues of flexible electronics, a room-temperature printing process of active phased-array antennas on a flexible Kapton substrate was developed. Field effect transistors (FETs) based on carbon nanotubes (CNTs), with many unique physical properties, were successfully proved feasible for the PAA system. This innovation is a new type of fully inkjet-printable, two-dimensional, high-frequency PAA on a flexible substrate at room temperature. The designed electronic circuit components, such as the FET switches in the phase shifter, metal interconnection lines, microstrip transmission lines, etc., are all printed using a special inkjet printer. Using the developed technology, entire 1x4, 2x2, and 4x4 PAA systems were developed, packaged, and demonstrated at 5.3 GHz. Several key solutions are addressed in this work to solve the fabrication issues. The source/drain contact is developed using droplets of silver ink printed on the source/drain areas prior to applying CNT thin-film. The wet silver ink droplets allow the silver to wet the CNT thin-film area and enable good contact with the source and drain contact after annealing. A passivation layer to protect the device channel is developed by bonding a thin Kapton film on top of the device channel. This film is also used as the media for transferring the aligned CNT thin-film on the device substrate. A simple and cost-effective technique to form multilayer metal interconnections on flexible substrate is developed and demonstrated. Contact vias are formed on the second substrate prior to bonding on the first substrate. Inkjet printing is used to fill the silver ink into the via structure. The printed silver ink penetrates through the vias to contact with the contact pads on the bottom layer. It is then annealed to form a good connection. One-dimensional and two-dimensional PAAs were fabricated and characterized. In these circuits, multilayer metal interconnects were used to make a complete PAA system.

Subbaraman, Harish

Localization of Ad-Hoc Lunar Constellations in Communication Failure Modes for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

As lunar missions increase in complexity inspired by NASA’s Artemis Program, they will require reliable and sufficient capability of the Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) system to support their scientific objectives. In addition, NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program initiates the proliferation of public and private exploration partnerships using small satellites from commercial and private organizations, expanding traditionally confined low Earth orbit to be used for missions beyond geosynchronous orbit (Zucherman et al., 2022). Therefore, the Lunar PNT system is also required to provide navigation services compatible with the smaller platforms being sent by the public and private sectors, like CubeSats. However, traditional approaches to deep space missions’ navigation based on ground radio facilities have difficulties in providing sufficient support for the increasing number of users and communication at a distance from the Earth (Kaplev et al., 2022). In particular, the existing Lunar navigation technologies such as weak signal global positioning system (GPS) and deep space network (DSN) are not able to ensure operations of the upcoming small-scale Lunar missions due to their limitations in localization performance as well as capacity aspects. Another way to provide Lunar PNT service is to create a dedicated Lunar global navigation satellite system (GNSS) constellation, like GNSS systems on Earth. Space agencies like NASA, ESA, and JAXA are now developing the lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS). In their systems, satellites will be deployed in moon orbits to provide the communication, positioning, navigation, and timing (CPNT) service at the lunar south pole region where the Artemis base camp will be expected (Murata et al., 2022). Meanwhile, common challenges considered in lunar PNT research arise from poor geometry of the terrestrial GNSS satellites when seen from the lunar user, highly perturbed lunar orbits, and limitations in power, size, and cost of the equipment on lunar satellites (Iiyama et al., 2023). It is also not clear if there will be enough Lunar users to support the cost and resources this would require as the Low-cost surface missions may not be able to support the large power, mass, and weight requirements that these navigation solutions entail (Niemoeller et al., 2022). As an alternative, existing Lunar science and exploration assets could be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions (Hagenau et al., 2021). Introducing the non-dedicated and ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation gives a way to provide PNT services on-demand. The non-dedicated swarm assets of Lunar constellations are designed to localize themselves with minimal interaction with Earth by adding cooperative autonomous localization to lunar missions, freeing up valuable bandwidth and ground segment resources. An autonomous localization of Lunar constellations is based on the concept of the decentralized PNT system with a distributed extended Kalman filter (DEKF) approach to state estimation for minimal onboard operating costs. In the distributed data processing algorithm, computation is broken down and assigned to each satellite, resulting in a considerably decreased computational amount while maintaining the accuracy of the orbit ephemeris and clock offsets as the result of centralized data processing (Wen et al., 2019). The DEKF requires spacecraft to perform two-way ranging operations with each other to communicate simultaneously, leveraging neighbor two-way intersatellite link (ISL) measurements such as pseudoranges to, and relative velocities between, visible satellites as sensor values (Frank et al., 2021). The Lunar autonomous PNT simulation (LAPS) demonstrated the feasibility of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar small-sat constellations based on the DEKF in Hagenau et al. (2021) and evaluated the matching algorithm proposed by Frank et al. (2021) in scheduling position estimation updates. In previous papers, all assets and measurements are assumed to be always available without consideration of the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure. This study presents localization performance with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets and users to demonstrate the robustness of the decentralized Lunar PNT service in more realistic scenarios. Main issues arising from communication failure include spacecraft permanent or transient loss, antenna failures, message delays, etc. We tested four possible reasons for network degradation for 7 days in 21 satellites frozen with an altitude of 5500 km, evenly spaced around 3 circular, 40 inclination orbital planes where each spacecraft has two directional antennas. As anchor nodes with an independent estimate of their position are required in the DEKF approach, two ground nodes in each pole and one node in the gateway were implemented in the simulation. First, the most probable failure scenario involves the loss of a single spacecraft due to solar interference and technical malfunctions of the assets. Losing the availability of a single spacecraft means losing the two-way ISL measurement of the asset in the DEKF update. In order to provide the best possible quality of PNT service with limited time and resources, the distributed Lunar constellations must schedule the communication activities. The scheduler leverages mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for the coordination and scheduling of the desired “as-needed” localization service (Niemoeller et al., 2022). We assume the scheduler has completely excluded the spacecraft information before the DEKF update in the failure scenario. When a random spacecraft has been turned off at a specific time, the robustness of the autonomous Lunar PNT system is evaluated. The simulation results give an 11.5% degradation in median position accuracy compared to the idealized performance excluding the asset loss. Second, a large number of assets may vanish due to major hardware problems or meteor strikes around the moon. A multiple spacecraft loss can degrade the localization performance very fast by losing the communication ability to do cross-plane measurements and in-plane measurements in a 3-plane constellation. When the matching-based scheduler is aware of ISL availability, we investigate a large number of in-plane and cross-plane asset vanishments both in close proximity and equally spaced throughout the orbital plane. According to the simulations, the loss of in-plane measurements gives 40.2% degradation while cross-plane measurements degrade 50.5% of asset localization performance among available assets. Therefore, it is concluded that cross-plane measurements are more important in improving the position estimation accuracy. Third, spacecraft failure information can be lost due to the internal message delay, resulting in the DEKF update scheduler to solve the matching problem with unavailable assets. The DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations where a global broadcast network and a 2-way ISL network setup take 6 minutes in total (Frank et al., 2021). Once the broadcast network successfully transmits and receives information, a random spacecraft may lose its availability right before solving the matching problem. This means the matching solution is no longer optimal, resulting in degradation in the localization performance. A numerical assessment shows the matching-based scheduler with knowing failure holds 11.5% of position accuracy degradation, whereas the scheduler without knowing failure gives 34% degraded localization performance without asset loss. Fourth, a transient loss of a single or multiple spacecraft may occur due to their antenna outages. After losing the two-way ISL availability for a few DEKF update cycles, the availability of spacecraft can easily be recovered as their states have been independently updated using measurements from anchor nodes. It is likely that the longer failure will result in worse localization performance. We have tested the transient failure of a random single asset for 30 min in the simulation, which is losing 3 update cycles in the DEKF system. From the simulation results, the position accuracy has been degraded to 4.84% which is better than the degraded localization performance of 11.5% from the permanent loss scenario among available assets. In conclusion, the autonomous Lunar PNT system based on the DEKF approach shows the ability to maintain resilience and robustness in the possible communication failure scenarios, ensuring that localization accuracy is preserved across various network degradation and outages. Future studies on investigating user localization performance near the South Pole and the broadcast network system will be continued in the following months.

Yeji Kim

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP

International Coordination and Cooperation on LunaNet Spectrum

LunaNet is planned to be the network of networks operated by a set of cooperating organizations to provide interoperable Communications, networking, Position, Navigation, and Timing (CPNT) services to users on and around the Moon based on a framework of mutually agreed-upon standards, protocols, frequency bands and interface requirements. LunaNet follows a service-oriented architecture that is agnostic about the types of organizations that provide services, e.g., government, industry, or academia. LunaNet is open, scalable, resilient, secure, and extensible. To achieve these goals, LunaNet Service Providers (LNSP) must coordinate with each other to define and develop the architecture, to plan initial and evolved capabilities, and to operate their networks. One of the central LunaNet tenets is the use of shared spectrum. For example, the Lunar Augmented Navigation Service (LANS) acts like a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) such as the US Global Positioning System (GPS) or European Galileo but the LNSPs’ contributions to LunaNet must use the same frequency band (2483.5 MHz-2500.0 MHz) and transmit the same waveform synchronized by highly accurate clocks so that Users ‘see’ one virtual network and use the same multilateration algorithm to determine their positions. This necessitates a high degree of spectrum coordination. NASA’s Lunar and Human Spaceflight Spectrum Management Team has been actively supporting development of the LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS), soliciting inputs from spectrum policy and planning experts across NASA, ESA and JAXA. Cislunar spectrum use considerations have been studied and adjudicated within the Space Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG) and inform the ongoing discussion of a lunar communication and navigation architecture within the existing radio regulatory framework of the International Telecommunication Union, leading to the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27). The frequency plan contained in the publicly released draft of the LunaNet Interoperability Specification reflects the initial phase of exploration (roughly to 2030) defining an optimal set of radio frequencies in appropriately allocated services consistent with WRC-23 decisions for use by known or planned CPNT applications, while striving to maximize coexistence and compatibility amongst cislunar systems and other systems within the near-Earth regime (< 2 million km from Earth). Important considerations include: protection of extremely sensitive receive-only radio astronomy systems on the lunar far side, known as the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM); compatibility between Direct with Earth (DWE) communications links and links needed to support relay satellites in lunar orbit with their customer systems on orbit or on the lunar surface; compatibility between multiple lunar surface communications systems and capabilities over varied and challenging terrain and distances; as well as ensuring compatibility and interoperability between navigation systems which either leverage Earth-based or in-situ lunar systems. In addition, the lunar CPNT architecture is envisioned to be the basis – with adjustments – of the future Mars CPNT architecture as we expand into the solar system using Interplanetary Networking (IPN). The second phase of lunar spectrum definition will address planned international capabilities for the next decade that will require action at WRC-27 and beyond. This paper will discuss each of these considerations in more depth and how the current LunaNet frequency plan addresses them.

LunaNet