SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Presentation reviews: (1) What is Architecting, (2) Constellation "Architecture", (3) Human Exploration Architecture (HEFT) Architecting Effort, (4) Forward work in Human Spaceflight Architecting
This viewgraph presentation reviews the human health and performance risks associated with long duration space flight beyond low earth orbit. The contents include: 1) Human Research Program; 2) Human Subsystem Risks; 3) Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) Architecture Elements; 4) Potentially Unacceptable Risks -1; 5) Potentially Unacceptable Risks-2; and 6) Major Mission Drivers of Risk.
HEFT was a NASA-wide team that performed analyses of architectures for human exploration beyond LEO, evaluating technical, programmatic, and budgetary issues to support decisions at the highest level of the agency in HSF planning. HEFT Phase I (April - September, 2010) and Phase II (September - December, 2010) examined a broad set of Human Exploration of Near Earth Objects (NEOs) Design Reference Missions (DRMs), evaluating such factors as elements, performance, technologies, schedule, and cost. At end of HEFT Phase 1, an architecture concept known as DRM 4a represented the best available option for a full capability NEO mission. Within DRM4a, the habitation system was provided by Deep Space Habitat (DSH), Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV), and Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) pressurized elements. HEFT Phase 2 extended DRM4a, resulting in DRM4b. Scrubbed element-level functionality assumptions and mission Concepts of Operations. Habitation Team developed more detailed concepts of the DSH and the DSH/MMSEV/CTV Conops, including functionality and accommodations, mass & volume estimates, technology requirements, and DDT&E costs. DRM 5 represented an effort to reduce cost by scaling back on technologies and eliminating the need for the development of an MMSEV.
Many options for exploration of space have been identified and evaluated since the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) was announced in 2004. The Augustine Commission evaluated human space flight for the Obama administration then the Human Exploration Framework Teams (HEFT and HEFT2) evaluated potential exploration missions and the infrastructure and technology needs for those missions. Lunar architectures have been identified and addressed by the Lunar Surface Systems team to establish options for how to get to, and then inhabit and explore, the moon. This paper will evaluate the options for exploration of space for the implications of architectures on the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS), Thermal Control (TCS), and Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Systems.
The Marshall Space Flight Center Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) has the leading role for NASA s preliminary conceptual launch vehicle design and performance analysis. Over the past several years the ACO Earth-to-Orbit Team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a multitude of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). NASA plans to continue human space exploration and space station utilization. Launch vehicles used for heavy lift cargo and crew will be needed. One of the current leading concepts for future heavy lift capability is an inline one and a half stage concept using solid rocket boosters (SRB) and based on current Shuttle technology and elements. Potentially, the quickest and most cost-effective path towards an operational vehicle of this configuration is to make use of a demonstrator vehicle fabricated from existing shuttle assets and relying upon the existing STS launch infrastructure. Such a demonstrator would yield valuable proof-of-concept data and would provide a working test platform allowing for validated systems integration. Using shuttle hardware such as existing RS-25D engines and partial MPS, propellant tanks derived from the External Tank (ET) design and tooling, and four-segment SRB s could reduce the associated upfront development costs and schedule when compared to a concept that would rely on new propulsion technology and engine designs. There are potentially several other additional benefits to this demonstrator concept. Since a concept of this type would be based on man-rated flight proven hardware components, this demonstrator has the potential to evolve into the first iteration of heavy lift crew or cargo and serve as a baseline for block upgrades. This vehicle could also serve as a demonstration and test platform for the Orion Program. Critical spacecraft systems, re-entry and recovery systems, and launch abort systems of Orion could also be demonstrated in early test flights of the launch vehicle demo. Furthermore, an early demonstrator of this type would provide a stop-gap for retaining critical human capital and infrastructure while affording the current emerging generation of young engineers opportunity to work with and capture lessons learned from existing STS program offices and personnel, who were integral in the design and development of the Space Shuttle before these resources are no longer available. The objective of this study is to define candidate launch vehicle demonstration concepts that are based on Space Shuttle assets and determine their performance capabilities and how these demonstration vehicles could evolve to a heavy lift capability to low earth orbit.
The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent go-to group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA s design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer s needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.
The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent "go-to" group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA's design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer's needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.
Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) was formulated to create a decision framework for human space exploration that drives out the knowledge, capabilities and infrastructure NASA needs to send people to explore multiple destinations in the Solar System in an efficient, sustainable way. The specific goal is to generate an initial architecture that can evolve into a long term, enterprise-wide architecture that is the basis for a robust human space flight enterprise. This paper will discuss the initial HEFT activity which focused on starting up the cross-agency team, getting it functioning, developing a comprehensive development and analysis process and conducting multiple iterations of the process. The outcome of this process will be discussed including initial analysis of capabilities and missions for at least two decades, keeping Mars as the ultimate destination. Details are provided on strategies that span a broad technical and programmatic trade space, are analyzed against design reference missions and evaluated against a broad set of figures of merit including affordability, operational complexity, and technical and programmatic risk.
The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) is an experimental exploration habitat technology and architecture test platform designed for analog demonstration activities. The HDU previously served as a test bed for testing technologies and sub-systems in a terrestrial surface environment. in 2010 in the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM) configuration. Due to the amount of work involved to make the HDU project successful, the HDU project has required a team to integrate a variety of contributions from NASA centers and outside collaborators The size of the team and number of systems involved With the HDU makes Integration a complicated process. However, because the HDU shell manufacturing is complete, the team has a head start on FY--11 integration activities and can focus on integrating upgrades to existing systems as well as integrating new additions. To complete the development of the FY-11 HDU from conception to rollout for operations in July 2011, a cohesive integration strategy has been developed to integrate the various systems of HDU and the payloads. The highlighted HDU work for FY-11 will focus on performing upgrades to the PEM configuration, adding the X-Hab as a second level, adding a new porch providing the astronauts a larger work area outside the HDU for EVA preparations, and adding a Hygiene module. Together these upgrades result in a prototype configuration of the Deep Space Habitat (DSH), an element under evaluation by NASA's Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) Scheduled activates include early fit-checks and the utilization of a Habitat avionics test bed prior to installation into HDU. A coordinated effort to utilize modeling and simulation systems has aided in design and integration concept development. Modeling tools have been effective in hardware systems layout, cable routing, sub-system interface length estimation and human factors analysis. Decision processes on integration and use of all new subsystems will be defined early in the project to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations. In addition a series of tailored design reviews are utilized to quickly define the systems and their integration into the DSH configuration. These processes are necessary to ensure activities, such as partially reversing integration of the X-Hab second story of the HDU and deploying and stowing the new work porch for transportation to the JSC Rock Yard and to the Arizona Black Point Lava Flow Site are performed with minimal or no complications. In addition, incremental test operations leading up to an Integrated systems test allows for an orderly systems test program. For FY-11 activities, the HDU DSH will act as a laboratory utilizing a new X-Hab inflatable second floor with crew habitation features. In addition to the day to day operations involving maintenance of the HDU and exploring the surrounding terrain, testing and optimizing the use of the new X-Hab, work porch, Hygiene Module, and other sub-system enhancements will be the focus of the FY-11 test objectives. The HDU team requires a successful integration strategy using a variety of tools and approaches to prepare the DSH for these test objectives. In a challenging environment where the prototyping influences the system design, as well as Vice versa, results of the HDU DSH field tests will influence future designs of habitat systems.