Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “exploration”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Space Biology and Medicine: Space and Its Exploration - Volume I

Perhaps one of the greatest gifts that has been given to the people of the world in the last few hundred years has been an emerging sense of the place of our planet and its inhabitants within the context of the vast universe. Our knowledge of the rest of the universe has not come quickly, nor was the process of attaining it only recently begun; however, the unprecedented acceleration of that process has benefitted from a fundamental new aspect of our species that has only manifested itself in the last 30 years or so, the ability to travel in space. Before the space age, the Universe was studied only through observations from the Earth. All that has changed with the beginning of the space age. Machines built by humans have flown to all but one of the nine planets that revolve around our Sun, have ventured billions of miles from the Earth and looked back, and have landed on three other worlds. Spacecraft in orbit around the Earth have viewed the sky at a vast number of electromagnetic wavelengths, detecting the shape of the galaxy and the universe, and even measuring the remnants of the universe's beginning. Human explorers have ventured forth, first for short stays in orbit, then, later, walking upon the Moon and living for long periods in space. As they did so, billions of people on the Earth came to view the Earth in a fundamentally different way, not just as the familiar day to- day backdrop for their lives, but as a small oasis suspended in the night sky above an alien landscape. It is this new view of the Earth that is the true gift of space exploration. Space exploration has at once given us a new perspective on the value of our world, and a new perspective from which to understand how it operates. It has shown us that the Earth is by far the most precious place in the solar system in terms of supporting human life, while revealing that other destinations may still be compelling. The exploration of space has at once become a challenge for humanity to overcome and a path to our common future. But for humanity to embark on this path, we need to understand ourselves in a new environment. As such, an understanding of the biological consequences of and opportunities in space flight is essential. In this, the first volume of a joint U.S./Russian series on space biology and medicine, we describe the current status of our understanding of space and present general information that will prove useful when reading subsequent volumes. Since we are witnesses to the beginning of a new era of interplanetary travel, a significant portion of the first volume will concentrate on the physical and ecological conditions that exist in near and outer space, as well as heavenly bodies from the smallest ones to the giant planets and stars. While space exploration is a comparatively recent endeavor, its foundations were laid much more than 30 years ago, and its history has been an eventful one. In the first part of this volume, Rauschenbach, Sokolskiy, and Gurjian address the "Historical Aspects of Space Exploration" from its beginnings to a present-day view of the events of the space age. The nature of space itself and its features is the focus of the second section of the volume. In the first chapter of the part, "Stars and Interstellar Space," the origin and evolution of stars, and the nature of the portions of space most distant from Earth are described by Galeev and Marochnik. In Chapter 2, Pisarenko, Logachev, and Kurt in "The Sun and Interplanetary Space" bring us to the vicinity of our own solar system and provide a description and discussion of the nearest star and its influence on the space environment that our Earth and the other planets inhabit. In our solar system there are many fascinating objects, remnants of the formation of a rather ordinary star in a rather obscure portion of the galaxy. Historical accident has caused us to be much more curious (and knowledgeable) about "The Inner Planets of the Solar System" than about any of these other objects. In Chapter 3, Marov describes the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, their history and origin, and their environmental conditions, and in Chapter 4 Owen provides similar information about Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, "The Outer Planets of the Solar System." Morrison provides a thorough discussion of "Asteroids, Comets, and Other Small Bodies" in Chapter 5. The understanding of these relics of the formation of the solar system may form the center of our ability to understand the origin of solar systems in general, and of the critical role that the beginning of the solar system had on the prospects for the origin of life and its continued survival and evolution in the face of their recurrent impacts on Earth. In Chapter 6, the first chapter of the third part, Rummel describes the area of "Exobiology," the study of the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the context of the origin and evolution of the universe. The same processes that have given rise to life on Earth may have given rise to life elsewhere. In Chapter 7, the "Earth and the Biosphere," the nature and function of the Earth are discussed as a specific instance of planetary and biological evolution. The effects of biological processes on the Earth under the influence of human activities are also addressed by Moore and Bartlett in Chapter 7. The final chapter in this section concerns the prospects that life in the universe may be widespread; "SETI," the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, by Billingham and Tarter, presents the arguments for conducting a search for evidence of life elsewhere in the galaxy, and describes the various methods proposed for conducting such a search. While SETI has a distinctly exploration al character, more direct means are available for exploring the solar system around us. The fourth part of the volume addresses this subject of space exploration. Considering the prospects for research on space biology and medicine, the means of providing "Access to Space" are described by Feoktistov and Briggs in Chapter 9. This chapter addresses carriers and launch systems, the unmanned and manned spacecraft that they loft into space, and the task of mission operations by which these precious vessels are monitored, navigated, and controlled. Despite the successes of the past and the capabilities of the present, it is clear that the study of space biology and medicine will be even more rewarding in the future than it has been to date. The work of the next few years that will be undertaken by the U.S. and Russia, both independently and jointly, will focus first on enabling greater capabilities in the exploration of space, and then on using the unique characteristics of the space environment to provide insight and greater understanding into biological systems, their behavior, development, and origin. The chapters of the first volume were written by leaders in their fields from the U.S. and Russia. The material presented summarizes our current understanding of space and its exploration. We understand that the first volume will be of interest not only to medical personnel and biologists, but also to general readers who want information about space beyond their own particular fields of expertise.

Nicogossian, Arnauld E.↗
NASA NTRS2015

The Global Exploration Roadmap: Opportunities for Lunar Science

The Global Exploration Roadmap (GER) has been developed by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG comprised of 14 space agencies) to define various pathways to getting humans beyond low Earth orbit and eventually to Mars. Such pathways include visiting asteroids or the Moon before going on to Mars. This document has been written at a very high level and many details are still to be determined. However, a number of important papers regarding international space exploration can form a basis for this document.This poster will focus on developing the Lunar Vicinity scenario by adding detail via mapping a number of recent reportsdocuments into the GER. The documents highlighted here are in no way meant to be all encompassing and other documents can and should be added, (e.g., the JAXA Space Exploration Roadmap). This exercise is intended to demonstrate that existing documents can be mapped into the GER despite the major differences in granularity, and that this mapping is a way to promote broader national and international buy-in to the Lunar Vicinity scenario.The documents used here are: the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Panel on Exploration report on developing a global space exploration program, the Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) report from the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG), the Lunar Exploration Roadmap developed by LEAG, the National Research Council report Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon (SCEM), and two journal articles, the scientific rationale for resuming lunar surface exploration, and the astrobiological benefits of human space exploration.In addition, the ISECG is in the process of developing a Science White Paper (SWP) to accompany the next edition of the GER, due in late 2016. The SWP will be an important tool to communicate science which will be able to be accomplished at human exploration destinations to policymakers. This abstract will discuss the process of developing this SWP and ways in which the global science community can become engaged in its development.

Schmidt, Gregory↗
NASA NTRS2017

Program Options to Explore Ocean Worlds

Including Earth, roughly a dozen water ocean worlds exist in the solar system: the relict worlds Ceres and Mars, vast oceans inside most of the large Jovian and Saturnian icy moons, and Kuiper Belt Objects like Triton, Charon, and Pluto whose geologies are dominated by water and ammonia. Key pieces of the ocean-world science puzzle – which when completed may reveal whether life is widespread in the cosmos, why it exists where it does, and how it originates – are distributed among them. The eventual exploration of all these worlds will yield humanity’s total tangible knowledge about life in the universe, essentially forever. Thus, their exploration has existential significance for humanity’s self-regard, and indeed perhaps of our place in the natural scheme. The matter of planning how to pursue such a difficult and unprecedented exploration opportunity is therefore historic. The technical challenges are formidable, far harder than at Mars: missions to the Jovian and Saturnian ocean worlds are severely power-limited; trip times can be as much as a half decade and decade, respectively. And the science targets are global-scale oceans beneath kilometers of cryogenic ice. Reaching and exploring them would be a multi-generational undertaking, so again it is essential to plan and prepare. Today, we lack the instrumentation, subsystems, and remote operational-intelligence technologies needed to build and use exploration avatars as good as what we can envision needing. Each ocean world holds a piece of the puzzle, but the three priority targets are Europa at Jupiter, and Enceladus and Titan at Saturn. As with the systematic exploration of Mars, exploring these diverse worlds poses a complex technical and programmatic challenge – a strategic challenge – that needs to be designed and managed if each generation is to see its work bear fruit, and if the space science community is to make most effective use of the public money devoted to the quest. Strategic programs benefit from coherence. In only 15 years, the Mars Exploration Program (MEP) has transformed humanity’s view of Mars as a once and future habitable place, a world quite possibly holding relict evidence of life. Finding such evidence, we would study it to know if that life shared an origin common with Earth life. However, life in the ocean worlds could not have shared our origin, so exploring them opens another level in our quest to understand life in the universe: not only to places with vast salt-water seas known to contain organics and hydrothermal seafloors active today, but to places where anything alive cannot be related to us. MEP’s success – from its presence in the public consciousness to its rewriting of planetary habitability – make it an obvious template and source of lessons learned for a viable ocean worlds exploration program (OWEP). Six attributes of the MEP are analyzed for application to a potential OWEP. From this, five hypothetical programmatic scenarios are compared to the default case, and conclusions drawn. A coherent OWEP should have several parts: first, dedicated continuous investment in enabling technologies; and second, two directed-purpose, medium-class (~$1B) missions per decade that conduct pivotal investigations on a documented roadmap. Science could start in 2035, informing development of decadal flagship missions after Europa Clipper, to the places revealed to hold the most promise. The fastest pace of scientific discoveries would require access to high-performance propulsion infrastructure, e.g., the Space Launch System, Falcon Heavy, and high-power in-space solar electric propulsion, all capable of halving trip time. Not including these boosts, such a program would cost about a half-billion dollars more per year than NASA’s existing mission portfolio; the program architecture funded today cannot deliver a strategic OWEP while also sustaining balance among other solar system exploration priorities and opportunities.

Naderi, F.↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA Laboratory Analysis for Manned Exploration Missions

The Exploration Laboratory Analysis (ELA) project supports the Exploration Medical Capability Element under the NASA Human Research Program. ELA instrumentation is identified as an essential capability for future exploration missions to diagnose and treat evidence-based medical conditions. However, mission architecture limits the medical equipment, consumables, and procedures that will be available to treat medical conditions during human exploration missions. Allocated resources such as mass, power, volume, and crew time must be used efficiently to optimize the delivery of in-flight medical care. Although commercial instruments can provide the blood and urine based measurements required for exploration missions, these commercial-off-the-shelf devices are prohibitive for deployment in the space environment. The objective of the ELA project is to close the technology gap of current minimally invasive laboratory capabilities and analytical measurements in a manner that the mission architecture constraints impose on exploration missions. Besides micro gravity and radiation tolerances, other principal issues that generally fail to meet NASA requirements include excessive mass, volume, power and consumables, and nominal reagent shelf-life. Though manned exploration missions will not occur for nearly a decade, NASA has already taken strides towards meeting the development of ELA medical diagnostics by developing mission requirements and concepts of operations that are coupled with strategic investments and partnerships towards meeting these challenges. This paper focuses on the remote environment, its challenges, biomedical diagnostics requirements and candidate technologies that may lead to successful blood/urine chemistry and biomolecular measurements in future space exploration missions. SUMMARY The NASA Exploration Laboratory Analysis project seeks to develop capability to diagnose anticipated space exploration medical conditions on future manned missions. To achieve this goal, NASA will leverage existing point-of-care technology to provide clinical laboratory measurements in space. This approach will place the project on a path to minimize sample, reagent consumption, mass, volume and power. For successful use in the space environment, NASA specific conditions such as micro gravity and radiation, for example, will also need to be addressed.

Exploration Medical Capability↗
NASA NTRS2015

Exploration Architecture with Quantum Inertial Gravimetry and In-Situ ChipSat Sensors

The Dual Exploration Architecture is a mission concept that combines remote sensing and in-situ observations into a single mission to answer planetary science questions that can only be answered with both types of data. Adoption of dual exploration architectures may short circuit the long, slow cycle of missions to inaccessible bodies by eliminating the need for separate precursor and follow-up missions. Additionally, the dual architecture possesses inherent flexibility that enables the design of adaptive, event-driven missions that are very different from traditional, largely pre-planned missions. Five key observations about the state and trends of planetary science exploration lead us to the dual architecture: increasing complexity of observations; scarcity of future mission opportunities; desire to capture transitory events; continued miniaturization of spacecraft components; and the Mars exploration cycle. Our goal in this study is to explore missions that can only happen using the dual architecture concept and find technology development needs that must be filled for those missions to compete. A survey of historical and current missions finds that opportunities for exploration are becoming less frequent, causing the flexibility and dual-nature elements of each mission to become more common. The dual exploration architecture takes these trends to their far conclusion, attempting to eliminate precursor and follow-up missions while still returning more scientific payoff. A study of the future of planetary science goals through the decadal survey reveals broad applicability of dual missions to solve mysteries that cannot be answered with a traditional mission architecture. These missions fall into three broad classes: choosing a local target from a global survey; dynamic/reactive science; and global in-situ networks. Two example missions of each class are notionally described. A deeper look at these dual architecture classes reveals four technology development needs that must be addressed for wide adoption of dual missions: passive landers; guided atmospheric probes; robust sensing packages; and small, precise orbital instruments. This study pursues a specific focus on two examples of such enabling technologies: the ChipSat and cold atom gravimetry. The ChipSat is a fully functional spacecraft-on-a-chip system that has broad versatility in the dual architecture mission space. Initial studies show that ChipSats could survive as passive impactor landers on bodies up to the size of Europa. Furthermore, COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) components could provide an in-situ sensor suite that readily answers a number of pressing planetary science questions. Cold atom gravimetry uses inertial sensors based on light-pulse atom interferometry in a small form factor to map the gravity field of a body to precision equaling what would normally require two full spacecraft to achieve. The cold atom gravimeter provides an example of how advanced remote sensing capability can enable dual missions by providing greater returns in a significantly smaller package. Using the above two technologies, we study an example dual-architecture mission to both characterize and sample the subsurface oceans at Europa. The greatest scientific return in terms of detecting extraterrestrial life is in those regions where Europa’s ice crust is thin. The identification of regions with thin ice should therefore precede the selection of surface targets and dispatch of probes to those targets. This two-step process, if accomplished by separate flagship-scale missions, might take decades. As a result, a combined mission to both identify thin areas of Europa’s ice and follow up with surface observations at those regions is a good candidate for the dual-exploration architecture. This example mission consists of an orbiter spacecraft carrying a cold atom gravimeter capable of sensing or inferring the ice thickness on regional to local scales, along with a number of ChipSat probes capable of landing on the moon. The small size and weight of the ChipSats allows large numbers of them to be carried, ensuring that enough can be dropped to ensure survival of a minimum number of probes and potentially allowing for the in-situ sampling of multiple locations on the moon. The example missions and Europa case study show that amazing scientific return can obtained from dual-exploration architecture missions with a single launch by breaking the long timescales of planetary exploration and providing the flexibility to capturing transitory events and collect data across the local, regional, and global scales.

Exploration↗
NASA NTRS1998

HEDS-UP Mars Exploration Forum

In the early 1990s, Duke and Budden convened a series of workshops addressing mission rationale, exploration objectives, and key constraints and issues facing human crews on Mars. The focal point was "why" the U.S. should fly humans to Mars. In the mid-1990s, strategies for a Mars mission matured and evolved, driven formally by NASA Johnson Space Center's Office of Exploration. In 1997, NASA published a report capturing the current thinking: the NASA Mars Reference Mission. In the 1997-1998 school year, HEDS-UP sponsored six universities to conduct design studies on Mars exploration, using the Reference Mission as a basis for their work. The 1998 Mars Exploration Forum presents the results of these university studies, suggesting "how" we might explore Mars, in terms of specific technical components that would enable human missions to Mars. A primary objective of the HEDS-UP Mars Exploration Forum was to provide a forum for active interaction among NASA, industry, and the university community on the subject of human missions to Mars. NASA scientists and engineers were asked to present the state of exploration for Mars mission options currently under study. This status "snapshot" of current Mars strategies set the stage for the six HEDS-UP universities to present their final design study results. Finally, a panel of industry experts discussed readiness for human missions to Mars as it pertains to the aerospace industries and technologies. A robust poster session provided the backdrop for government-industry-university discussions and allowed for feedback to NASA on the Mars Reference Mission. The common thread woven through the two days was discussion of technologies, proven and emerging, that will be required to launch, land, and sustain human crews on the Red Planet. As this decade (and indeed this millenium) draws to a close, Mars will continue to loom in our sights as the next target for human space exploration. It is our hope that the efforts of the Mars Exploration Forum will serve as one small contribution toward the ultimate goal of humans exploring Mars.

Budden, Nancy Ann↗
NASA NTRS2004

Teleoperation from Mars Orbit: A proposal for Human Exploration

For a human expedition to Mars, a case can be made that the best strategy for initial exploration is not to actually land the humans on Mars, but to put the humans into Mars orbit and operate on the surface by the technology of teleoperation. This will provide the results of human exploration, but at greatly reduced risk and cost. Teleoperation of Mars surface robots from a Mars-orbital habitat will operation near real time operation with minimum time delay, giving a virtual presence on the surface. By use of teleoperation, it is possible to vastly simplify the surface exploration mission. We now have no need to develop a human-rated Mars Lander and Mars Ascent Vehicle, and we can send geologists & biologists on the mission; not VTOL pilots. It is a cheaper, simpler, and safer way to explore, and hence it will be a faster way to explore. It has the excitement of being there, at a fraction of the price. Tele-exploration from Mars orbit also allows human (virtual) presence at a wide variety of locations. With an orbital base controlling surface telerobotics, human explorers are not stuck with one base location, but can explore all over Mars. They can explore the polar caps and also near-equatorial canyon regions, from the same orbiting base. This frees the mission from landing site constraints. With no need to select a "grab bag" site that contains a large number of geologically diverse features at or near a single location; it is now possible go to all the best sites-- paleolake sites, river beds, volcanic calderas, lava tube sites, layered terrain, canyons, possible shoreline features, the North and South poles. A near-polar inclination 24-hr 39-minute period Mars orbit, for example, will put the orbital station in line-of-sight of a given region for about 8 hours per day-- one teleoperation shift. Since present day life could exist on Mars, planetary protection is also needed to preserve the (possible) fragile Mars biosphere from competition from ferocious Earth life. Isolated biospheres on Earth have been devastated when they have been exposed to alien life forms introduced-accidentally or deliberately-- from another continent. If there is life on Mars, we will wish to protect it from having to compete with introduced Earth biota. Reverse planetary protection-protecting the Earth biosphere from exposure to Mars microorganisms-is also an important consideration. Exploring from orbit will reduce biological risk by keeping humans from exposure to possible Mars microbes. A telerobotic mission will need no quarantine on return to Earth, and avoids the difficult human question of how to isolate Mars mission astronauts infected by Martian microorganisms.

Landis, Geoffrey A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Human Exploration of Near-Earth Asteroids and Sample Collection Considerations

In 2009 the Augustine Commission identified near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. Subsequently, the U.S. presidential administration directed NASA on April 15, 2010 to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s. This directive became part of the official National Space Policy of the United States of America as of June 28, 2010. Human Exploration Considerations: These missions would be the first human expeditions to interplanetary bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system and would prove useful for testing technologies required for human missions to Mars, Phobos and Deimos, and other Solar System destinations. Missions to NEAs would undoubtedly provide a great deal of technical and engineering data on spacecraft operations for future human space exploration while conducting in-depth scientific examinations of these primitive objects. However, prior to sending human explorers to NEAs, robotic investigations of these bodies would be required in order to maximize operational efficiency and reduce mission risk. These precursor missions to NEAs would fill crucial strategic knowledge gaps concerning their physical characteristics that are relevant for human exploration of these relatively unknown destinations. Sample Science Benefits: Information obtained from a human investigation of a NEA, together with ground-based observations and prior spacecraft investigations of asteroids and comets, will also provide a real measure of ground truth to data obtained from terrestrial meteorite collections. Major advances in the areas of geochemistry, impact history, thermal history, isotope analyses, mineralogy, space weathering, formation ages, thermal inertias, volatile content, source regions, solar system formation, etc. can be expected from human NEA missions. Samples directly returned from a primitive body would lead to the same kind of breakthroughs for understanding NEAs that the Apollo samples provided for understanding the Earth-Moon system and its formation history. International Participation: In addition, robotic precursor and human exploration missions to NEAs would allow the NASA and its international partners to gain operational experience in performing complex tasks (e.g., sample collection, deployment of payloads, retrieval of payloads, etc.) with crew, robots, and spacecraft under microgravity conditions at or near the surface of a small body. This would provide an important synergy between the worldwide Science and Exploration communities, which will be crucial for development of future international deep space exploration architectures and has potential benefits for future exploration of other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.

Abell, Paul↗
NASA NTRS2015

Human Exploration of Phobos

This study developed, analyzed, and compared mission architectures for human exploration of Mars' Moons within the context of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. METHODS: All trades assumed conjunction class missions to Phobos (approximately 500 days in Mars system) as it was considered the driving case for the transportation architecture. All architectures assumed that the Mars Transit Habitat would remain in a High Mars Orbit with crewmembers transferring between HMO and Phobos in a small crew taxi vehicle. A reference science / exploration program was developed including performance of a standard set of tasks at 55 locations on the Phobos surface. Detailed EVA timelines were developed using realistic flight rules to accomplish the reference science tasks using exploration systems ranging from jetpacks to multi-person pressurized excursion vehicles combined with Phobos surface and orbital (L1, L4/L5, 20km Distant Retrograde Orbit) habitat options. Detailed models of propellant mass, crew time, science productivity, radiation exposure, systems and consumables masses, and other figures of merit were integrated to enable quantitative comparison of different architectural options. Options for pre-staging assets using solar electric propulsion (SEP) vs. delivering all systems with the crew were also evaluated. Seven discrete mission architectures were evaluated. RESULTS: The driving consideration for habitat location (Phobos surface vs. orbital) was radiation exposure, with an estimated reduction in cumulative mission radiation exposure of up to 34% (vs. Mars orbital mission) when the habitat is located on the Phobos surface, compared with only 3-6% reduction for a habitat in a 20km DRO. The exploration utility of lightweight unpressurized excursion vehicles was limited by the need to remain within 20 minutes of Solar Particle Event radiation protection combined with complex GN&C systems required by the non-intuitive and highly-variable gravitational environment. Two-person pressurized excursion vehicles as well as mobile surface habitats offer significant exploration capability and operational benefits compared with unpressurized EVA mobility systems at the cost of increased system and propellant mass. Mechanical surface translation modes (i.e. hopping) were modeled and offer potentially significant propellant savings and the possibility of extended exploration operations between crewed missions. Options for extending the utilization of the crew taxi vehicle were examined, including use as an exploration asset for Phobos surface exploration (when combined with an alternate mobility system) and as an EVA platform, both on Phobos and for contingency EVA on the Mars Transit Habitat. CONCLUSIONS: Human exploration of Phobos offers a scientifically meaningful first step towards human Mars surface missions that develops and validates transportation, habitation, and exploration systems and operations in advance of the Mars landing systems.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Implementing NASA's Capability-Driven Approach: Insight into NASA's Processes for Maturing Exploration Systems

NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗
NASA NTRS2016

Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute: Year Three Annual Report 2016

NASA's Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) is pleased to present the 2016 Annual Report. Each year brings new scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs, and collaborations. The integration of basic research and development, industry and academic partnerships, plus the leveraging of existing technologies, has further opened a scientific window into human exploration. SSERVI sponsorship by the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) continues to enable the exchange of insights between the human exploration and space science communities, paving a clearer path for future space exploration. SSERVI provides a unique environment for scientists and engineers to interact within multidisciplinary research teams. As a virtual institute, the best teaming arrangements can be made irrespective of the geographical location of individuals or laboratory facilities. The interdisciplinary science that ensues from virtual and in-person interactions, both within the teams and across team lines, provides answers to questions that many times cannot be foreseen. Much of this research would not be accomplished except for the catalyzing, collaborative environment enabled by SSERVI. The SSERVI Central Office, located at NASA Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, California, provides the leadership, guidance and technical support that steers the virtual institute. At the start of 2016, our institute had nine U.S. teams, each mid-way through their five-year funding cycle, plus nine international partnerships. However, by the end of the year we were well into the selection of four new domestic teams, selected through NASA's Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) process, and a new international partnership. Understanding that human and robotic exploration is most successful as an international endeavor, international partnerships collaborate with SSERVI domestic teams on a no-exchange of funds basis, but they bring a richness to the institute that is priceless. The international partner teams interact with the domestic teams in a number of ways, including sharing students, scientific insights, and access to facilities. We are proud to introduce our newest partnership with the Astrophysics and Planetology Research Institute (IRAP) in Toulouse, France. In 2016, Principal Investigator Dr. Patrick Pinet assembled a group of French researchers who will contribute scientific and technological expertise related to SSERVI research. SSERVI's domestic teams compete for five-year funding opportunities through proposals to a NASA CAN every few years. Having overlapping proposal selection cycles allows SSERVI to be more responsive to any change in direction NASA might experience, while providing operational continuity for the institute. Allowing new teams to blend with the more seasoned teams preserves corporate memory and expands the realm of collaborative possibilities. A key component of SSERVI's mission is to grow and maintain an integrated research community focused on questions related to the Moon, Near-Earth asteroids, and the moons of Mars. The strong community response to CAN-2 demonstrated the health of that effort. NASA Headquarters conducted the peer-review of 22 proposals early in 2017 and, based on recommendations from the SSERVI Central Office and NASA SSERVI program officers, the NASA selecting officials determined the new teams in the spring of 2017. We are pleased to welcome the CAN-2 teams into the institute, and look forward to the collaborations that will develop with the current teams. The new teams are: The Network for Exploration and Space Science (NESS) team (Principal Investigator (PI) Prof. Jack Burns/U. Colorado); the Exploration Science Pathfinder Research for Enhancing Solar System Observations (ESPRESSO) team (PI Dr. Alex Parker/Southwest Research Institute); the Toolbox for Research and Exploration (TREX) team (PI Dr. Amanda Hendrix/ Planetary Science Institute); and the Radiation Effects on Volatiles and Exploration of Asteroids & Lunar Surfaces (REVEALS) team (PI Prof. Thomas Orlando/ Georgia Institute of Technology). In this report, you will find an overview of the 2016 leadership activities of the SSERVI Central Office, reports prepared by the U.S. teams from CAN-1, and achievements from several of the SSERVI international partners. Reflecting on the past year's discoveries and advancements serves as a potent reminder that there is still a great deal to learn about NASA's target destinations. Innovation in the way we access, sample, measure, visualize, and assess our target destinations is needed for further discovery. At the same time, let us celebrate how far we have come, and strongly encourage a new generation that will make the most of future opportunities.

Pendleton, Yvonne↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Exercise System (EES) Development

Exploration class missions will be required to have an exercise device that is lightweight, has a small footprint, and is capable of providing enough physical stimulus and exercise variability to be an effective countermeasure against muscle and bone loss that results from the microgravity environment. Exploration exercise device prototypes should be evaluated on the ground and in-orbit for feasibility of use in microgravity for long and short duration exploration missions and efficacy of the device to maintain multi-system health and performance. The European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) was selected as the exploration prototype device to be evaluated on ISS for efficacy and feasibility of use as a single multi-modality device for the exercise system for exploration missions. This effort supports the continued development, testing, and verification of E4D hardware and software, internal NASA integration (Human Health and Performance, ISS Vehicle Office, Engineering, and Flight Operations), and external integration across NASA, ESA, and the Danish Aerospace Company (DAC). Providing a feasibility and acceptability assessment from a physiological efficacy and hardware durability standpoint are critical for informing use and risk associated with use on exploration missions. Clearly defined objectives from end users, stakeholders, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) will be tested by crewmembers during acute use sessions and long duration use of the exercise device while on ISS. This effort will include a flight study where crewmembers will be asked to exercise using only the E4D during the duration of their mission and participate in a battery of physiological testing to evaluate the efficacy. Hardware is scheduled to launch in FY25 followed by 2 years of operational use after activation and checkout. A final recommendation will be provided to the Artemis program on acceptability of the device for exploration missions. The E4D needs a vibration isolation stabilization (VIS) system that serves as a platform for the exercise hardware to protect the vehicle from loads imparted during exercise. Exploration forward VIS systems will need to protect the vehicle and provide sufficient stabilization for the exerciser during performance of all critical exercises. These enabling capabilities need to be achieved within exploration vehicle power, thermal, mass, and volume limitations.

Kent Lawrence Kalogera↗
NASA NTRS2024

Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate: Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery. Extending the reach of humanity through the human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond is key to that mission. NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives document establishes long-term goals and objectives for crewed deep space exploration; however, satisfying NASA’s Moon to Mars Objectives requires an innovative approach to the definition, management, and execution of NASA’s Moon to Mars Architecture. An architecture offers a high-level unifying structure and defines a system. It provides rules, guidelines, and constraints that define a cohesive and coherent framework that identifies constituent parts, relationships, and connections and establishes how those parts fit and work together. This Architecture Definition Document (ADD) establishes the process for the decomposition of objectives empowers the agency’s success in achieving human exploration of the cosmos. NASA updates this document annually to reflect the maturation of the architecture and the progress NASA and partners make toward achieving exploration objectives. The ADD is not a manifest or requirements document. Instead, it serves as a tool for the programs, projects, and engineers who will implement and execute NASA’s bold ambitions for crewed exploration of deep space. As established in the Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives, “Why” we explore encompasses three pillars: Science, Inspiration, and National Posture. Ensuring success in all three areas requires an architectural approach that incorporates innovation, collaboration, and partnerships that can be sustained across a multi-decadal effort. This second revision (Rev-B) of the ADD, developed to support NASA’s 2024 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), incorporates several key updates to support the continued evolution of the architecture. Since the last revision of the ADD, NASA has significantly improved the clarity of the objective decomposition, which distills exploration objectives into the characteristics and needs and use cases and functions needed to achieve them. The updated decomposition incorporates findings from internal studies and diverse stakeholder feedback. A model-based systems engineering approach ensures coherence and consistency, removing inconsistency and repetition. Revision B also incorporates advancements to NASA’s Mars architecture, including insight into initial capabilities, systems, and operations necessary to support the Humans to Mars segment. Updates to objective decomposition for Mars add significant detail to the ADD and hint at areas of forward work and future study. An appendix adds greater depth in the future decisions needed for Mars that will drive lunar needs. They are not the only decisions to be made, but they will have huge effects on subsequent decisions. NASA continues to introduce new exploration systems into the architecture. Two new elements — initial surface habitat and lunar surface cargo lander—successfully passed mission concept review in 2024 as a result of extensive analysis, concept refinement, and studies. These elements and their respective reference missions appear in this revision. NASA also continues to apply architecture processes to cross-agency efforts and coordination with external stakeholders by including definitions of architecture technology gaps — essential areas for engagement across and beyond the agency. The technology gaps appendix identifies areas that need attention and innovation to enable future exploration. In publishing this information, NASA communicates the technologies and capabilities that may benefit from partnership with industry, academia, other U.S. government agencies, and international space agencies. Ultimately, NASA established the Moon to Mars Architecture approach to communicate and facilitate humanity’s journey into the universe according to the principles and recurring tenets of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives. The NASA architecture team thanks their many stakeholders, participants, and partners for their efforts to review and provide feedback. Their support has been critical to the success of this approach.

Elements↗
NASA NTRS1987

Planetary exploration: To boldly go - or what?

The direction of solar system exploration in the U.S. is examined. Planetary exploration missions from 1961-1976 are reviewed. The objectives of the Viking and Voyager missions are described. The effects of launch vehicles and access to space, the cost of exploration, the balance of planetary exploration with other space sciences, and international planet exploration missions on future planetary exploration programs are discussed. Inner and outer solar system exploration, comet exploration, extensive human visitations to Mars, joint U.S.-Soviet programs, and exploration beyond the solar system are proposed as future planetary missions.

Allen, Lew, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Workshop on Science and the Human Exploration of Mars

The exploration of Mars will be a multi-decadal activity. Currently, a scientific program is underway, sponsored by NASA's Office of Space Science in the United States, in collaboration with international partners France, Italy, and the European Space Agency. Plans exist for the continuation of this robotic program through the first automated return of Martian samples in 2014. Mars is also a prime long-term objective for human exploration, and within NASA, efforts are being made to provide the best integration of the robotic program and future human exploration missions. From the perspective of human exploration missions, it is important to understand the scientific objectives of human missions, in order to design the appropriate systems, tools, and operational capabilities to maximize science on those missions. In addition, data from the robotic missions can provide critical environmental data - surface morphology, materials composition, evaluations of potential toxicity of surface materials, radiation, electrical and other physical properties of the Martian environment, and assessments of the probability that humans would encounter Martian life forms. Understanding of the data needs can lead to the definition of experiments that can be done in the near-term that will make the design of human missions more effective. This workshop was convened to begin a dialog between the scientific community that is central to the robotic exploration mission program and a set of experts in systems and technologies that are critical to human exploration missions. The charge to the workshop was to develop an understanding of the types of scientific exploration that would be best suited to the human exploration missions and the capabilities and limitations of human explorers in undertaking science on those missions.

Duke, M. B.↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Vision for Space Exploration

With last year's budget, NASA released a new Strategic Plan outlining a new approach to space exploration using a 'building block' strategy to explore scientifically valuable destinations across our solar system. At the same time that we released the Strategic Plan, our Nation and the NASA family also suffered the loss of the seven brave astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. The report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board emphasized the need for a clearer direction from which to drive NASA's human exploration agenda. On January 14, 2004, the President articulated a new vision for space exploration. You hold in your hands a new, bolder framework for exploring our solar system that builds upon the policy that was announced by the President after months of careful deliberations within the Administration. This plan does not undertake exploration merely for the sake of adventure, however exciting that may be, but seeks answers to profound scientific and philosophical questions, responds to recent discoveries, will put in place revolutionary technologies and capabilities for the future, and will genuinely inspire our Nation, the world, and the next generation. Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner. We believe the principles and roadmap set down in this document will stand the test of time. Its details will be subject to revision and expansion as new discoveries are made, new technologies are applied, and new challenges are met and overcome. This plan is guided by the Administration's new space exploration policy, 'A Renewed Spirit of Discovery: The President's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration,' a copy of which is provided on the following pages. NASA is releasing this plan simultaneously with NASA's FY 2005 Budget Justification. This plan is fiscally responsible, consistent with the Administration s goal of cutting the budget deficit in half within the next five years. I cannot overstate how much NASA will change in the coming years as this plan is implemented. I also cannot overstate how profound the rewards will be on this new course. With the support of Congress, the science community, the NASA civil and contractor workforce, and most importantly, the American public, we will embark on this very exciting future. When Christopher Columbus made his voyages across the Atlantic in the 15th and 16th centuries, his ships carried the inscription 'Following the light of the sun, we left the Old World.' I look forward to joining you as we follow the light of the planets and the stars into the new worlds of the 21st century.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Exploration Rover Concepts and Development Challenges

This paper presents an overview of exploration rover concepts and the various development challenges associated with each as they are applied to exploration objectives and requirements for missions on the Moon and Mars. A variety of concepts for surface exploration vehicles have been proposed since the initial development of the Apollo-era lunar rover. This paper provides a brief description of the rover concepts, along with a comparison of their relative benefits and limitations. In addition, this paper outlines, and investigates a number of critical development challenges that surface exploration vehicles must address in order to successfully meet the exploration mission vision. These include: mission and environmental challenges, design challenges, and production and delivery challenges. Mission and environmental challenges include effects of terrain, extreme temperature differentials, dust issues, and radiation protection. Design methods are discussed that focus on optimum methods for developing highly reliable, long-life and efficient systems. In addition, challenges associated with delivering a surface exploration system is explored and discussed. Based on all the information presented, modularity will be the single most important factor in the development of a truly viable surface mobility vehicle. To meet mission, reliability, and affordability requirements, surface exploration vehicles, especially pressurized rovers, will need to be modularly designed and deployed across all projected Moon and Mars exploration missions.

Zakrajsek, James J.↗
NASA NTRS2005

An Overview of Power Capability Requirements for Exploration Missions

Advanced power is one of the key capabilities that will be needed to achieve NASA's missions of exploration and scientific advancement. Significant gaps exist in advanced power capabilities that are on the critical path to enabling human exploration beyond Earth orbit and advanced robotic exploration of the solar system. Focused studies and investment are needed to answer key development issues for all candidate technologies before down-selection. The viability of candidate power technology alternatives will be a major factor in determining what exploration mission architectures are possible. Achieving the capabilities needed to enable the CEV, Moon, and Mars missions is dependent on adequate funding. Focused investment in advanced power technologies for human and robotic exploration missions is imperative now to reduce risk and to make informed decisions on potential exploration mission decisions beginning in 2008. This investment would begin the long lead-time needed to develop capabilities for human exploration missions in the 2015 to 2030 timeframe. This paper identifies some of the key technologies that will be needed to fill these power capability gaps. Recommendations are offered to address capability gaps in advanced power for Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) power, surface nuclear power systems, surface mobile power systems, high efficiency power systems, and space transportation power systems. These capabilities fill gaps that are on the critical path to enabling robotic and human exploration missions. The recommendations address the following critical technology areas: Energy Conversion, Energy Storage, and Power Management and Distribution.

Davis, Jose M.↗