Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “explorer”

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 1,153 records · Page 64
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

PNEUMATIC SAMPLER (P-SAMPLER) FOR THE MARTIAN MOONS EXPLORATION (MMX)

The Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission, led by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), will focus on the exploration of the two Martian moons – Phobos and Deimos . The spacecraft will perform close-up remote sensing and observations of both moons, and collect a sample from Phobos for Earth sample return. MMX has set the two mission goals: (1) determining the origin of the Martian moons and (2) observing processes in the circumplanetary environment of Mars, based on remote sensing, in-situ observations, and laboratory analyses of returned Phobos regolith.

D. Van Dyne↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and how key performance parameters (KPPs) are being used to measure the degree of capability gap closure. KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the strategic approach to gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pneumatic Sampler (P-SAMPLER) for the Martian Moons Exploration (MMX)

The Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission, led by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), will focus on the exploration of the two Martian moons – Phobos and Deimos (). The spacecraft will perform close-up remote sensing and observations of both moons, and collect a sample from Phobos for Earth sample return.

D Van Dyne↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pneumatic Sampler (P-Sampler) for the Martian Moons Exploration (MMX)

The Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission, led by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), will focus on the exploration of the two Martian moons – Phobos and Deimos (Figure 1). The spacecraft will perform close-up remote sensing and observations of both moons and collect a sample from Phobos for Earth sample return. MMX has set the two mission goals: (1) determining the origin of the Martian moons and (2) observing processes in the circumplanetary environment of Mars, based on remote sensing, in-situ observations, and laboratory analyses of returned samples of Phobos regolith [1-2]. To fulfill the mission goals, MMX employs a double sampling approach: Coring and Pneumatic Samplers (Figure 2).The Coring Sampler (C-Sampler), a core soil tube deployed by a robotic arm, providing access to the building blocks of Phobos beneath the surface (>2 cm), and also collect a mixture of near surface material. The P-Sampler, on the other hand, would selectively sample the surface veneer and provides reference of surface component with the C-Sampler. The double sampling system not only enhances the scientific merits of MMX but also reduces risks associated with the sampling of Phobos. Without enough knowledge of the physical and chemical properties, and the geotechnical conditions of the surface of Phobos (e.g., compositions, temperature gradient/variation, porosity, grain size distribution), having two sampling systems that utilize entirely different sampling approaches is prudent.

Dylan Van Dyne↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Earth-based Operational Field Tests as High-Fidelity Analogs for Planetary Surface Exploration

NASA is preparing to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon within the next decade and establish a permanent sustainable human presence before sending humans onto Mars. To ensure the success of these missions, NASA has performed operational testing in terrestrial, aquatic, and laboratory analog environments that simulate Lunar and Martian environmental characteristics to evaluate exploration concepts of operations (ConOps), engineering design requirements, science support needs, mission operations techniques, and crew training. Terrestrial analogs include Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS), Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT), and Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP)Habitat Ground Testing. Aquatic analogs include NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) and Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP).Laboratory analogs include the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL), Active Response Gravity Offload System(ARGOS), rock yards, and virtual and hybrid reality simulation environments. While no single Earth-based analog environment is perfect for simulating all characteristics of other planetary surfaces, testing across multiple locations leverages the strengths of each to provide an integrated understanding of how to best conduct real spaceflight surface exploration missions.

B A Janoiko↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

James Lee Broyan↗
NASA NTRS2021

Framework for Coordinated Efforts in the Exploration of Volatiles in the South Polar Region of the Moon

The exploration of the lunar south polar region and the ground truthing of polar volatiles is one of the top priorities for several space agencies and private partners. Here we use Moon Mineralogy Mapper surficial water ice detections to investigate the location of water ice-bearing permanently shaded regions near the south pole. We extract a variety of parameters such as their temperature regime, slope, hydrogen content, number of ice detections, depth stability for water ice and dry ice, and mobility aspects. We identify 169 water ice-bearing PSRs and use their characteristics to identify sites that allow to access the highest abundances of volatiles, sites that can be visited to characterize the lateral or vertical distribution of volatiles (water ice and dry ice), and sites that allow for the fastest recovery of a scientifically interesting sample. Collectively, 37 PSRs are identified as sites of interest, including 11 that would address more than one mission objective and may be, for that reason, higher priority targets of exploration. These PSRs are found in Shoemaker, Faustini, Cabeus, Malapert, Nobile, Sverdrup, Wiechert J and Haworth craters, as well as 3 unnamed craters (PSRs 57, 120, 89). These sites are all located within 6 degrees of the south pole. We present case studies for a relatively short traverse mission (20 to 50 km) to PSR 89, a medium length traverse (~100 km) to Sverdrup 1, and a longer traverse (~300 km) to Cabeus that can serve as a guide in planning upcoming exploration missions.

Myriam Lemelin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2021

Exploration Mission Tasks: A Technical Manual

This technical manual is an abridgement of the Generalizable Skills and Knowledge for Exploration Missions (NASA/CR-2018-22045) report (Stuster et al., 2019), describing research conducted under Cooperative Agreement 80NSSC18K0042 for the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, Human Research Program, located at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Johnson Space Center. The research identified tasks that will be conducted by human crew during an expedition to Mars, and the abilities, skills, and knowledge that will be required of crew members. The 3-year study uses research methods that were developed to analyze the work performed by a variety of civilian and military occupational specialties and is consistent with Human Factors methods. The work began by developing a comprehensive inventory of 1,125 tasks that are likely to be performed during the 12 phases of the first human expeditions to Mars, from launch to landing 30 months later. Sixty subject matter experts (SMEs) rated expedition tasks in terms of (likely) frequency of performance, difficulty to learn, and importance to mission success; a fourth metric (criticality), was derived by summing the mean ratings of the three dimensions. Seventy-two SMEs placed the physical, cognitive, and social abilities necessary to perform the tasks in order of importance for specialist domains identified by the task analysis. The research team then identified: 1) Abilities, skills, and knowledge that can be retained and generalized across tasks and 2) Implications for crew size and composition. Study results also led to recommendations concerning equipment, habitats, and procedures for exploration-class space missions. Note: The full-mission task inventory was developed during a comprehensive review of documentation and concepts of operations. It was understood by the study team that the tasks were based on currently available information, and that the tools, equipment, propulsion methods, and/or other aspects of actual human expeditions to Mars might be different from those described here, as a consequence of technological development and evolving Mars Design Reference Missions. The purpose and scope of this technical manual is to present the core, actionable information that resulted from this research. The abridged format is intended to address the needs of development and research teams to quickly access, discern, and use the information in the course of their exploration-related work.

Brandin Munson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Medical Capability Science and Research Overview and Update

The mission of the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is to advance medical system design and risk-informed decision making for exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit to promote human health and performance in space. To accomplish this mission, ExMC focuses on several key areas: • Investigating specific risks that are relevant for human exploration spaceflight, including in-flight medical conditions, degraded or toxic medications, and renal stones • Developing medical probabilistic risk analysis tools that are integrated with systems engineering processes to inform the medical system trade space and support the development of robust requirements • Demonstrating and defining requirements for a prototype clinical decision support system • Developing and demonstrating novel medical technologies that will improve future medical capabilities in space This presentation will focus on selected scientific and technical conceptual drivers for the Element and its current and future research risks and gaps while providing an overview of the Element’s progress in 2021 and areas of focus for 2022.

Benjamin Easter↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS Teams Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, And ISS: Behavioral Medicine Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration class space missions. The HFBP-EM addresses the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns 4 and 5, and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of spaceflight environments. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected in spaceflight as part of the HRP Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are the same across studies, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, and mission length) and implementation of the measures require that the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project was to develop a harmonized database of analyzable HFBP-EM data from spaceflight and analog settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance outcomes within and between mission settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of BMed related measures including depression, neurobehavioral function, mood, cognition, and operationally relevant individual performance over time and by campaign and mission.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in technology development, ground testing, and ISS technology demonstrations within the NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) community. This paper provides a technology development update in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. Technologies for exploration missions must be reliable in their operation which support crewed mission phases. However, they also need to be put into a reduced use or dormant states to support uncrewed mission phases and then successfully and reliably returned to a nominal state to support crew. Multi-year demonstration of systems operation across this range of conditions are essential to mission success. Project overviews will include how the current activity supports the goal of multi-year demonstrations, planned follow-on activities, and what type of exploration mission elements are targeted for infusion. Technologies must be demonstrated and validated early enough to inform early exploration element milestone reviews (mission concept reviews, systems requirement reviews and no later than preliminary design reviews) so that supporting vehicle systems can also be matured. Consequently, for low technology readiness activities, it is important to also identify which mission elements they might infuse into and how they may offer potential operational, dormancy, or mass benefits. While low TRL technology timelines may not support initial mission needs, early infusion is still reasonable with sufficient testing to validate performance and reliability.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Science Technology Development Programs for Ocean Worlds Exploration

The exploration of ocean worlds such as Europa and Enceladus supports NASA’s goal to search for life and potentially habitable regions elsewhere in the universe, and further promises to help us understand the origins, evolution, and limits of life on Earth. Over the past several years, NASA’s Planetary Science Division has funded several technology development programs to enable future surface and subsurface missions to ocean worlds. These programs include Instrument Concepts for Europa Exploration (ICEE), Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech), Scientific Exploration Subsurface Access Mechanism for Europa (SESAME), Applied Information Systems Research: Autonomous Robotics Research for Ocean Worlds (AISR:ARROW), and Astrodynamics in Support of Icy Worlds Missions. Tasks selected under these programs include the development of scientific instruments including seismometers, imagers, spectrometers, and organic analyzers, and platform technologies including drills, melt probes, through-ice communications, radiation-hard electronics, and autonomy for surface operations. This paper describes the objectives of each of these programs and provides a summary of the work that has been completed or is underway in each.

technology↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring de Gerlache Crater

The campaign of Artemis missions will result in the first crewed missions to the surface of the Moon in the 21stCentury. As outlined by the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) United States Lunar Exploration Roadmap (US-LER), human missions to the Moon will result in significant advances across a wide variety of scientific and engineering disciplines[1]contributing significantly to scientific discovery, economic prosperity, and world security. A significant focus is exploring lunar Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs). PSRs can contain volatiles, including water ice, which makes them high priority for scientific investigation and economic activity.

Moon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗