Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “EV safety”

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.

130 records · Page 8

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↗

Lunar Gateway Charging and Effects on Low-Energy Electron Measurements

The Electron Electrostatic Analyzer (EEA) is part of the HERMES instrument suite on Lunar Gateway and is designed to measure electrons in the energy range from 1 eV to 18 keV. Electrons in this range can be deflected or blocked from entering a detector by electric fields from a charged spacecraft platform, so many heliophysics missions (MMS, Cluster, etc.) use active potential control to minimize stray electric fields which would corrupt low-energy plasma measurements. Gateway, however, does not have such capabilities so the surface charging effects will influence the electron data. Further, some elements of Gateway partially block the instrument’s field of view to space. The effects of the Gateway platform on the low-energy electron population must be understood to maximize the accuracy of the EEA data. To investigate the electrostatic environment near Gateway and its effects on the EEA measurements, we use Nascap-2K to model the expected charging of Gateway under representative solar wind, magnetosheathic, and magnetospheric conditions. Next, we use the potential and electric field outputs from Nascap-2K along with in-house particle tracing codes to investigate how low-energy electrons are perturbed, blocked, or deflected by the spacecraft. We discuss how these perturbations impact the plasma moments computed from the EEA data and possible approaches for correcting the charging effects including application of advanced methods such as neural networks. In addition to electrons from the space environment being influenced by the electrostatic environment around Gateway, photoelectrons generated on Gateway surfaces will also be measured by EEA. We are investigating how knowledge of the potentials of various Gateway surfaces can be extracted from these measured photoelectrons using advanced numerical modeling and analysis. Such information would be valuable for validating charging models and planning mission operations around the platform. Finally, we discuss how the specific workflow developed for Gateway can be extended to a generalized process that is applicable to other future missions. As the space industry prepares for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, the need to obtain accurate space weather data from rideshare science payloads is critical. Our process for removing platform effects from the science data serves as a pathfinder for leveraging advanced simulations to maximize science returns and ensure the safety and success of future crewed missions.

Miles Bengtson↗

Advancements in Validation of TSLs through Inelastic Neutron Scattering and Transmission Measurements [Abstract]

Historically, the free gas approximation has been used to treat the thermal scattering of neutrons with energies below a few electron-volts (eV) in unevaluated materials. However, this method inadequately reproduces neutron scattering at these energies. Until recently, only a limited number of materials had available thermal scattering law (TSL) files/libraries in the ENDF nuclear data libraries in this energy range. With advancements in atomistic modeling techniques, such as molecular dynamics, ab-initio molecular dynamics, and density functional theory, TSL libraries have become available for many more materials. This is particularly relevant due to the rising interest in several advanced reactor systems that require novel moderator and reflector materials. While quasi-integral and integral benchmarks have been designed to validate historically important moderator materials (such as light water and polyethylene), there is currently a lack of standard validation methods for TSLs, especially when multiple conflicting TSLs exist. To address this issue, the Oak Ridge National Lab Nuclear Data group has been working on utilizing inelastic neutron scattering (INS) measurements combined with transmission (i.e., total cross section) measurements to evaluate and validate TSLs for different materials. We plan to demonstrate how this method has worked on materials such as polyethylene, lucite, and polystyrene. In addition, we will compare the newly created libraries to ENDF libraries for these materials and explain why integral benchmarks should not be used for validation when multiple TSLs exist.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗