Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “load balancing”

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.

886 records · Page 50
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Adaptation of the Skeletal System during Long-duration Spaceflight

This review will highlight evidence from crew members flown on space missions greater than 90 days to suggest that the adaptations of the skeletal system to mechanical unloading may predispose crew members to an accelerated onset of osteoporosis after return to Earth. By definition, osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder - characterized by low bone mineral density and structural deterioration - that reduces the ability of bones to resist fracture under the loading of normal daily activities. Involutional or agerelated osteoporosis is readily recognized as a syndrome afflicting the elderly population because of the insipid and asymptomatic nature of bone loss that does not typically manifest as fractures until after age approximately 60. It is not the thesis of this review to suggest that spaceflight-induced bone loss is similar to bone loss induced by metabolic bone disease; rather this review draws parallels between the rapid and earlier loss in females that occurs with menopause and the rapid bone loss in middle-aged crew members that occurs with spaceflight unloading and how the cumulative effects of spaceflight and ageing could be detrimental, particularly if skeletal effects are totally or partially irreversible. In brief, this report will provide detailed evidence that long-duration crew members, exposed to the weightlessness of space for the typical long-duration (4-6 months) mission on Mir or the International Space Station -- 1. Display bone resorption that is aggressive, that targets normally weight-bearing skeletal sites, that is uncoupled to bone formation and that results in areal BMD deficits that can range between 6-20% of preflight BMD; 2. Display compartment-specific declines in volumetric BMD in the proximal femur (a skeletal site of clinical interest) that significantly reduces its compressive and bending strength and which may account for the loss in hip bone strength (i.e., force to failure); 3. Recover BMD over a post-flight time period that exceeds spaceflight exposure but for which the restoration of whole bone strength remains an open issue and may involve structural alteration; and 4. Display risk factors for bone loss -- such as the negative calcium balance and down-regulated calcium-regulating hormones in response to bone atrophy -- that can be compounded by the constraints of conducting mission operations (inability to provide essential nutrients and vitamins). The full characterization of the skeletal response to mechanical unloading in space is not complete. In particular, countermeasures used to date have been inadequate and it is not yet known whether more appropriate countermeasures can prevent the changes in bone that have been found in previous flights, knowledge gaps related to the effects of prolonged (greater than or equal to 6 months) space exposure and to partial gravity environments are substantial, and longitudinal measurements on crew members after spaceflight are required to assess the full impact on skeletal recovery.

Sibonga, Jean D.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Stratospheric Aerosol Measurements

Stratospheric aerosols affect the atmospheric energy balance by scattering and absorbing solar and terrestrial radiation. They also can alter stratospheric chemical cycles by catalyzing heterogeneous reactions which markedly perturb odd nitrogen, chlorine and ozone levels. Aerosol measurements by satellites began in NASA in 1975 with the Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement (SAM) program, to be followed by the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) starting in 1979. Both programs employ the solar occultation, or Earth limb extinction, techniques. Major results of these activities include the discovery of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) in both hemispheres in winter, illustrations of the impacts of major (El Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991) eruptions, and detection of a negative global trend in lower stratospheric/upper tropospheric aerosol extinction. This latter result can be considered a triumph of successful worldwide sulfur emission controls. The SAGE record will be continued and improved by SAGE III, currently scheduled for multiple launches beginning in 2000 as part of the Earth Observing System (EOS). The satellite program has been supplemented by in situ measurements aboard the ER-2 (20 km ceiling) since 1974, and from the DC-8 (13 km ceiling) aircraft beginning in 1989. Collection by wire impactors and subsequent electron microscopic and X-ray energy-dispersive analyses, and optical particle spectrometry have been the principle techniques. Major findings are: (1) The stratospheric background aerosol consists of dilute sulfuric acid droplets of around 0.1 micrometer modal diameter at concentration of tens to hundreds of monograms per cubic meter; (2) Soot from aircraft amounts to a fraction of one percent of the background total aerosol; (3) Volcanic eruptions perturb the sulfuric acid, but not the soot, aerosol abundance by several orders of magnitude; (4) PSCs contain nitric acid at temperatures below 195K, supporting chemical hypotheses implicating manmade fluorocarbons as cause of the --'ozone hole'; (5) The current soot loading is too small to be of environmental (radiative and chemical) consequence. However, the fractal nature of soot distinguishes it aerodynamically and radiatively from sulfuric acid droplets such that its stratospheric residence time is longer, mainly because of vertical transport against gravity due to gravito-photophoretic forces. Thus it may accumulate and become of environmental concern in the future.

Pueschel, Rudolf, F.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Fuel-Efficient Descent and Landing Guidance Logic for a Safe Lunar Touchdown

The landing of a crewed lunar lander on the surface of the Moon will be the climax of any Moon mission. At touchdown, the landing mechanism must absorb the load imparted on the lander due to the vertical component of the lander's touchdown velocity. Also, a large horizontal velocity must be avoided because it could cause the lander to tip over, risking the life of the crew. To be conservative, the worst-case lander's touchdown velocity is always assumed in designing the landing mechanism, making it very heavy. Fuel-optimal guidance algorithms for soft planetary landing have been studied extensively. In most of these studies, the lander is constrained to touchdown with zero velocity. With bounds imposed on the magnitude of the engine thrust, the optimal control solutions typically have a "bang-bang" thrust profile: the thrust magnitude "bangs" instantaneously between its maximum and minimum magnitudes. But the descent engine might not be able to throttle between its extremes instantaneously. There is also a concern about the acceptability of "bang-bang" control to the crew. In our study, the optimal control of a lander is formulated with a cost function that penalizes both the touchdown velocity and the fuel cost of the descent engine. In this formulation, there is not a requirement to achieve a zero touchdown velocity. Only a touchdown velocity that is consistent with the capability of the landing gear design is required. Also, since the nominal throttle level for the terminal descent sub-phase is well below the peak engine thrust, no bound on the engine thrust is used in our formulated problem. Instead of bangbang type solution, the optimal thrust generated is a continuous function of time. With this formulation, we can easily derive analytical expressions for the optimal thrust vector, touchdown velocity components, and other system variables. These expressions provide insights into the "physics" of the optimal landing and terminal descent maneuver. These insights could help engineers to achieve a better "balance" between the conflicting needs of achieving a safe touchdown velocity, a low-weight landing mechanism, low engine fuel cost, and other design goals. In comparing the computed optimal control results with the preflight landing trajectory design of the Apollo-11 mission, we noted interesting similarities between the two missions.

guidance logic↗
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↗