Fill, Tom | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2018

Orion Powered Flight Guidance Burn Options for Near Term Exploration

NASA's Orion exploration spacecraft will fly more demanding mission profiles than previous NASA human flight spacecraft. Missions currently under development are destined for cislunar space. The EM-1 mission will fly unmanned to a Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) around the Moon. EM-2 will fly astronauts on a mission to the lunar vicinity. To fly these missions, Orion requires powered flight guidance that is more sophisticated than the orbital guidance flown on Apollo and the Space Shuttle. Orion's powered flight guidance software contains five burn guidance options. These five options are integrated into an architecture based on a proven shuttle heritage design, with a simple closed-loop guidance strategy. The architecture provides modularity, simplicity, versatility, and adaptability to future, yet-to-be-defined, exploration mission profiles. This paper provides a summary of the executive guidance architecture and details the five burn options to support both the nominal and abort profiles for the EM-1 and EM-2 missions.

Fill, Tom↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Reusable Design for Precision Lunar Landing Systems

The top-level architecture to accomplish NASA's Vision for Space Exploration is to use Lunar missions and systems not just as an end in themselves, but also as testbeds for the more ambitious goals of Human Mars Exploration (HME). This approach means that Lunar missions and systems are most likely going to be targeted for (Lunar) polar missions, and also for long-duration (months) surface stays. This overacting theme creates basic top-level requirements for any next-generation lander system: 1) Long duration stays: a) Multiple landers in close proximity; b) Pinpoint landings for "surface rendezvous"; c) Autonomous landing of pre-positioned assets; and d) Autonomous Hazard Detection and Avoidance. 2) Polar and deep-crater landings (dark); 3) Common/extensible systems for Moon and Mars, crew and cargo. These requirements pose challenging technology and capability needs. Compare and contrast: 4) Apollo: a) 1 km landing accuracy; b) Lunar near-side (well imaged and direct-to-Earth com. possible); c) Lunar equatorial (landing trajectories offer best navigation support from Earth); d) Limited lighting conditions; e) Significant ground-in-the-loop operations; 5) Lunar Access: a) 10-100m landing precision; b) "Anywhere" access includes polar (potentially poor nav. support from Earth) and far side (poor gravity and imaging; no direct-to-Earth com); c) "Anytime" access includes any lighting condition (including dark); d) Full autonomous landing capability; e) Extensible design for tele-operation or operator-in-the-loop; and f) Minimal ground support to reduce operations costs. The Lunar Access program objectives, therefore, are to: a) Develop a baseline Lunar Precision Landing System (PLS) design to enable pinpoint "anywhere, anytime" landings; b) landing precision 10m-100m; c) Any LAT, LON; and d) Any lighting condition; This paper will characterize basic features of the next generation Lunar landing system, including trajectory types, sensor suite options and a reference system architecture.

Fuhrman, Linda↗