Dittemore, Gary | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2013

Advanced Caution and Warning System, Final Report - 2011

The work described in this report is a continuation of the ACAWS work funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010 under the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP), Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) project. In FY 2010, we developed requirements for an ACAWS system and vetted the requirements with potential users via a concept demonstration system. In FY 2011, we developed a working prototype of aspects of that concept, with placeholders for technologies to be fully developed in future phases of the project. The objective is to develop general capability to assist operators with system health monitoring and failure diagnosis. Moreover, ACAWS was integrated with the Discrete Controls (DC) task of the Autonomous Systems and Avionics (ASA) project. The primary objective of DC is to demonstrate an electronic and interactive procedure display environment and multiple levels of automation (automatic execution by computer, execution by computer if the operator consents, and manual execution by the operator).

Spirkovska, Lilly↗

NASA NTRS2011

MLAS and LAS: Project Comparison of Lessons Learned

The development of new and safer manned space vehicles is a top priority at NASA. Recently two different approaches of how to accomplish this mission of keeping astronauts safe was successfully demonstrated. With work already underway on an Apollo-like launch abort system for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an alternative design concept named the Max Launch Abort System, or MLAS, was developed as a parallel effort. The Orion system, managed by the Constellation office, is based on the design of a single solid launch abort motor in a tower positioned above the capsule. The MLAS design takes a different approach placing the solid launch abort motor underneath the capsule. This effort was led by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). Both escape systems were designed with the Ares I Rocket as the launch vehicle and had the same primary requirement to safely propel a crew module away from any emergency event either on the launch pad or during accent. Beyond these two parameters, there was little else in common between the two projects, except that they both concluded in successful launches that will further promote the development of crew launch abort systems. This presentation will compare both projects from the standpoint of technical requirements; program management and flight test objectives and highlight the synergistic lessons learned by two engineers who worked on each program.

Dittemore, Gary↗