SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2007

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Water Landing Simulation

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) water splashdowns were simulated in order to find maximum acceleration loads on the astronauts and spacecraft under various landing conditions. The acceleration loads were used in a Dynamic Risk Index (DRI) program to find the potential risk for injury posed on the astronauts for a range of landing conditions. The DRI results showed that greater risks for injury occurred for two landing conditions; when the vertical velocity was large and the contact angle between the spacecraft and the water impact surface was zero, and when the spacecraft was in a toe down configuration and both the vertical and horizontal landing velocities were large. Rollover was also predicted to occur for cases where there is high horizontal velocity and low contact angles in a toe up configuration, and cases where there was a high horizontal velocity with high contact angles in a toe down configuration.

Littell, Justin D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Integrated Landing System

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Chief Engineer requested a risk comparison of the Integrated Landing System design developed by NASA and the design developed by Contractor- referred to as the LM 604 baseline. Based on the results of this risk comparison, the CEV Chief engineer requested that the NESC evaluate identified risks and develop strategies for their reduction or mitigation. The assessment progressed in two phases. A brief Phase I analysis was performed by the Water versus Land-Landing Team to compare the CEV Integrated Landing System proposed by the Contractor against the NASA TS-LRS001 baseline with respect to risk. A phase II effort examined the areas of critical importance to the overall landing risk, evaluating risk to the crew and to the CEV Crew Module (CM) during a nominal land-landing. The findings of the assessment are contained in this report.

Baker, John D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Potable Water System Verification Description

The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), also known as Orion, will ferry a crew of up to six astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), or a crew of up to four astronauts to the moon. The first launch of CEV is scheduled for approximately 2014. A stored water system on the CEV will supply the crew with potable water for various purposes: drinking and food rehydration, hygiene, medical needs, sublimation, and various contingency situations. The current baseline biocide for the stored water system is ionic silver, similar in composition to the biocide used to maintain quality of the water transferred from the Orbiter to the ISS and stored in Contingency Water Containers (CWCs). In the CEV water system, the ionic silver biocide is expected to be depleted from solution due to ionic silver plating onto the surfaces of the materials within the CEV water system, thus negating its effectiveness as a biocide. Since the biocide depletion is expected to occur within a short amount of time after loading the water into the CEV water tanks at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), an additional microbial control is a 0.1 micron point of use filter that will be used at the outlet of the Potable Water Dispenser (PWD). Because this may be the first time NASA is considering a stored water system for longterm missions that does not maintain a residual biocide, a team of experts in materials compatibility, biofilms and point of use filters, surface treatment and coatings, and biocides has been created to pinpoint concerns and perform testing to help alleviate those concerns related to the CEV water system. Results from the test plans laid out in the paper presented to SAE last year (Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Potable Water System Verification Coordination, 2008012083) will be detailed in this paper. Additionally, recommendations for the CEV verification will be described for risk mitigation in meeting the physicochemical and microbiological requirements on the CEV PWS.

Peterson, Laurie↗

NASA NTRS2008

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Potable Water System Verification Description

Peterson, Laurie↗

NASA NTRS2009

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Avionics Integration Laboratory (CAIL) Independent Analysis

Two approaches were compared to the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Avionics Integration Laboratory (CAIL) approach: the Flat-Sat and Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL). The Flat-Sat and CAIL/SAIL approaches are two different tools designed to mitigate different risks. Flat-Sat approach is designed to develop a mission concept into a flight avionics system and associated ground controller. The SAIL approach is designed to aid in the flight readiness verification of the flight avionics system. The approaches are complimentary in addressing both the system development risks and mission verification risks. The following NESC team findings were identified: The CAIL assumption is that the flight subsystems will be matured for the system level verification; The Flat-Sat and SAIL approaches are two different tools designed to mitigate different risks. The following NESC team recommendation was provided: Define, document, and manage a detailed interface between the design and development (EDL and other integration labs) to the verification laboratory (CAIL).

Davis, Mitchell L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

ENRE 655 Class Project. Development of the Initial Main Parachute Failure Probability for the Constellation Program (CxP) Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS)

Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) are two key requirements the Constellation Program (CxP) measure against. To date, one of the top risk drivers for both LOC and LOM has been Orion's Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS). Even though the Orion CPAS is one of the top risk drivers of CxP, it has been very difficult to obtain any relevant data to accurately quantify the risk. At first glance, it would seem that a parachute system would be very reliable given the track record of Apollo and Soyuz. Given the success of those two programs, the amount of data is considered to be statistically insignificant. However, due to CxP having LOC/LOM as key design requirements, it was necessary for Orion to generate a valid prior to begin the Risk Informed Design process. To do so, the Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) Space Shuttle & Exploration Analysis Section generated an initial failure probability for Orion to use in preparation for the Orion Systems Requirements Review (SRR).

Fuqua, Bryan C.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection

Dr. Nancy J. Currie, of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), Chief Engineer at Johnson Space Center (JSC), requested an assessment of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) occupant protection as a result of issues identified by the Constellation Program and Orion Project. The NESC, in collaboration with the Human Research Program (HRP), investigated new methods associated with occupant protection for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), known as Orion. The primary objective of this assessment was to investigate new methods associated with occupant protection for the CEV, known as Orion, that would ensure the design provided minimal risk to the crew during nominal and contingency landings in an acceptable set of environmental and spacecraft failure conditions. This documents contains the outcome of the NESC assessment. NASA/TM-2013-217380, "Application of the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion to Spacecraft Transient Dynamic Events." supercedes this document.

Currie-Gregg, Nancy J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection: Appendices - Part 1

Dr. Nancy J. Currie, of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), Chief Engineer at Johnson Space Center (JSC), requested an assessment of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) occupant protection as a result of issues identified by the Constellation Program and Orion Project. The NESC, in collaboration with the Human Research Program (HRP), investigated new methods associated with occupant protection for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), known as Orion. The primary objective of this assessment was to investigate new methods associated with occupant protection for the CEV, known as Orion, that would ensure the design provided minimal risk to the crew during nominal and contingency landings in an acceptable set of environmental and spacecraft failure conditions. This documents contains the appendices to the NESC assessment report. NASA/TM-2013-217380, Application of the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion to Spacecraft Transient Dynamic Events supersedes this document.

Currie-Gregg, Nancy J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) Independent Design Reliability Assessment

This report documents the activities, findings, and NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) recommendations of a multidiscipline team to independently assess the Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS). This assessment occurred during a period of 15 noncontiguous months between December 2008 and April 2010, prior to the CPAS Project's Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in August 2010.

Kelly, Michael J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) Independent Design Reliability Assessment: Appendices - Volume 2

This document contains the Appendices to the report documenting the activities, findings, and NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) recommendations of a multidiscipline team to independently assess the Constellation Program (CxP) Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS). The assessment occurred during a period of 15 noncontiguous months between December 2008 and April 2010, prior to the CPAS Project's Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in August 2010.

Kelly, Michael J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Human Factors in the Design of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)

NASA s Space Exploration vision for humans to venture to the moon and beyond provides interesting human factors opportunities and challenges. The Human Engineering group at NASA has been involved in the initial phases of development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Orion. Getting involved at the ground level, Human Factors engineers are beginning to influence design; this involvement is expected to continue throughout the development lifecycle. The information presented here describes what has been done to date, what is currently going on, and what is expected in the future. During Phase 1, prior to the contract award to Lockheed Martin, the Human Engineering group was involved in generating requirements, conducting preliminary task analyses based on interviews with subject matter experts in all vehicle systems areas, and developing preliminary concepts of operations based on the task analysis results. In addition, some early evaluations to look at CEV net habitable volume were also conducted. The program is currently in Phase 2, which is broken down into design cycles, including System Readiness Review, Preliminary Design Review, and Critical Design Review. Currently, there are ongoing Human Engineering Technical Interchange Meetings being held with both NASA and Lockheed Martin in order to establish processes, desired products, and schedules. Multiple design trades and quick-look evaluations (e.g. display device layout and external window size) are also in progress. Future Human Engineering activities include requirement verification assessments and crew/stakeholder evaluations of increasing fidelity. During actual flights of the CEV, the Human Engineering group is expected to be involved in in-situ testing and lessons learned reporting, in order to benefit human space flight beyond the initial CEV program.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2007

Overview of Potable Water Systems on Spacecraft Vehicles and Applications for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)

Providing water necessary to maintain life support has been accomplished in spacecraft vehicles for over forty years. This paper will investigate how previous U.S. space vehicles provided potable water. The water source for the spacecraft, biocide used to preserve the water on-orbit, water stowage methodology, materials, pumping mechanisms, on-orbit water requirements, and water temperature requirements will be discussed. Where available, the hardware used to provide the water and the general function of that hardware will also be detailed. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV or Orion) water systems will be generically discussed to provide a glimpse of how similar they are to water systems in previous vehicles. Conclusions on strategies that could be used for CEV based on previous spacecraft water systems will be made in the form of questions and recommendations.

Peterson, Laurie J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Overview of Umbilical Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Interfaces in Life Support Systems on Spacecraft Vehicles and Applications for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)

Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for manned spacecraft vehicles have been performed for contingencies and nominal operations numerous times throughout history. This paper will investigate how previous U.S. manned spacecraft vehicles provided life support to crewmembers performing the EVA. Specifically defined are umbilical interfaces with respect to crewmember cooling, drinking water, air (or oxygen), humidity control, and carbon dioxide removal. As historical data is available, the need for planned versus contingency EVAs in previous vehicles as well as details for a nominal EVA day versus a contingency EVA day will be discussed. The hardware used to provide the cooling, drinking water, air (or oxygen), humidity control, and carbon dioxide removal, and the general functions of that hardware, will also be detailed, as information is available. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV or Orion) EVA interfaces will be generically discussed to provide a glimpse of how similar they are to the EVA interfaces in previous vehicles. Conclusions on strategies that should be used for CEV based on previous spacecraft EVA interfaces will be made in the form of questions and recommendations.

Peterson, Laurie J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Integrating Human Factors into Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Design

The purpose of this design process is to apply Human Engineering (HE) requirements and guidelines to hardware/software and to provide HE design, analysis and evaluation of crew interfaces. The topics include: 1) Background/Purpose; 2) HE Activities; 3) CASE STUDY: Net Habitable Volume (NHV) Study; 4) CASE STUDY: Human Modeling Approach; 5) CASE STUDY: Human Modeling Results; 6) CASE STUDY: Human Modeling Conclusions; 7) CASE STUDY: Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Approach; 8) CASE STUDY: Unsuited Evaluation Results; 9) CASE STUDY: Suited Evaluation Results; 10) CASE STUDY: Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Conclusions; 11) Near-Term Plan; and 12) In Conclusion

Mihriban Whitmore↗

NASA NTRS2008

Orion -- Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Overview

NASA explores for answers that power our future by building a new space exploration vehicle that will become America s human spacecraft workhorse after the shuttle is retired in 2010. The new spacecraft is called Orion. Orion is part of the Constellation Program to send human explorers back to the Moon and beyond

Naffah, Eli↗

NASA NTRS2016

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection

The purpose of this study was to determine the similarity between the response of the THUMS model and the Hybrid III Anthropometric Test Device (ATD) given existing Wright-Patterson (WP) sled tests. There were four tests selected for this comparison with frontal, spinal, rear, and lateral loading. The THUMS was placed in a sled configuration that replicated the WP configuration and the recorded seat acceleration for each test was applied to model seat. Once the modeling simulations were complete, they were compared to the WP results using two methods. The first was a visual inspection of the sled test videos compared to the THUMS d3plot files. This comparison resulted in an assessment of the overall kinematics of the two results. The other comparison was a comparison of the plotted data recorded for both tests. The metrics selected for comparison were seat acceleration, belt forces, head acceleration and chest acceleration. These metrics were recorded in all WP tests and were outputs of the THUMS model. Once the comparison of the THUMS to the WP tests was complete, the THUMS model output was also examined for possible injuries in these scenarios. These outputs included metrics for injury risk to the head, neck, thorax, lumbar spine and lower extremities. The metrics to evaluate head response were peak head acceleration, HIC15, and HIC36. For the neck, N (sub ij) was calculated. The thorax response was evaluated with peak chest acceleration, the Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), sternal deflection, chest deflection, and chest acceleration- 3 ms clip. The lumbar spine response was evaluated with lumbar spine force. Finally the lower extremity response was evaluated by femur and tibia force. The results of the simulation comparisons indicate the THUMS model had a similar response to the Hybrid III dummy given the same input. The primary difference seen between the two was a more flexible response of the THUMS compared to the Hybrid III. This flexibility was most pronounced in the neck flexion, shoulder deflection and chest deflection. Due to the flexibility of the THUMS, the resulting head and chest accelerations tended to lag the Hybrid III acceleration trace and have a lower peak value. The results of the injury metric comparison identified possible injury trends between simulations. Risk of head injury was highest for the lateral simulations. The risk of chest injury was highest for the rear impact. However, neck injury risk was approximately the same for all simulations. The injury metric value for lumbar spine force was highest for the spinal impact. The leg forces were highest for the rear and lateral impacts. The results of this comparison indicate the THUMS model performs in a similar manner as the Hybrid III ATD. The differences in the responses of model and the ATD are primarily due to the flexibility of the THUMS. This flexibility of the THUMS would be a more human like response. Based on the similarity between the two models, the THUMS should be used in further testing to assess risk of injury to the occupant.

Currie-Gregg, Nancy J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Preliminary Structural Sizing and Alternative Material Trade Study of CEV Crew Module

This paper presents the results of a preliminary structural sizing and alternate material trade study for NASA s Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Crew Module (CM). This critical CEV component will house the astronauts during ascent, docking with the International Space Station, reentry, and landing. The alternate material design study considers three materials beyond the standard metallic (aluminum alloy) design that resulted from an earlier NASA Smart Buyer Team analysis. These materials are graphite/epoxy composite laminates, discontinuously reinforced SiC/Al (DRA) composites, and a novel integrated panel material/concept known as WebCore. Using the HyperSizer (Collier Research and Development Corporation) structural sizing software and NASTRAN finite element analysis code, a comparison is made among these materials for the three composite CM concepts considered by the 2006 NASA Engineering and Safety Center Composite Crew Module project.

Bednarcyk, Brett A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Training Facility Support

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is developing the next set of vehicles that will take men back to the moon under the Constellation Program. The Constellation Training Facility (CxTF) is a project in development that will be used to train astronauts, instructors, and flight controllers on the operation of Constellation Program vehicles. It will also be used for procedure verification and validation of flight software and console tools. The CxTF will have simulations for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Crew Module (CM), CEV Service Module (SM), Launch Abort System (LAS), Spacecraft Adapter (SA), Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), Pressurized Cargo Variant CM, Pressurized Cargo Variant SM, Cargo Launch Vehicle, Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The Facility will consist of part-task and full-task trainers, each with a specific set of mission training capabilities. Part task trainers will be used for focused training on a single vehicle system or set of related systems. Full task trainers will be used for training on complete vehicles and all of its subsystems. Support was provided in both software development and project planning areas of the CxTF project. Simulation software was developed for the hydraulic system of the Thrust Vector Control (TVC) of the ARES I launch vehicle. The TVC system is in charge of the actuation of the nozzle gimbals for navigation control of the upper stage of the ARES I rocket. Also, software was developed using C standards to send and receive data to and from hand controllers to be used in CxTF cockpit simulations. The hand controllers provided movement in all six rotational and translational axes. Under Project Planning & Control, support was provided to the development and maintenance of integrated schedules for both the Constellation Training Facility and Missions Operations Facilities Division. These schedules maintain communication between projects in different levels. The CxTF support provided is one that requires continuous maintenance since the project is still on initial development phases.

Flores, Jose M.↗