Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Robert L Howard

Publications and source records attributed to Robert L Howard.

13 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Lunar Lab Initiative

Analogous to terrestrial Antarctic basecamps at our south pole, space exploration outposts will be a combination of habitation and science-focused assets. The Artemis Exploration Roadmap endeavors to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar south pole starting in 2028. Within the planned Artemis Base Camp, most efforts to date have focused on the habitation assets or a mixture of science and habitation assets . With the recent advent of commercial lunar landing capabilities, the trade space can be further expanded to include dedicated science focused assets that ensure adequate science capability. To that end, the Forge, an innovation team initiative created at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), explored alternative ways to increase the science capabilities within the basecamp. The Forge uses structured brainstorming and facilitation to increase innovation within the assigned team, while executing its process in a rapid turnaround fashion for ideation and design study. As a pilot study for the Forge, a multi-disciplinary team investigated a lunar lab module to augment the lunar surface plans for Artemis. This formulation study evaluated the scientific and operational considerations for this dedicated crew space that would increase the capabilities of lunar surface science operations. The trade space evaluated single lunar lander delivery versus multiple lunar lander delivery for module assembly, alternative structural designs, the science instrument outfitting with mapping to scientific goals to maximize lunar science objectives, and how the lab would be operated. The lab operations options explored a stand-alone facility, as well as a facility integrated into a larger lunar surface complex, while evaluating crew usage and habitability considerations. The resulting alternatives were evaluated by the Forge team with a set of metrics to determine their originality, feasibility, and science performance, and thereby provide a recommendation to the lunar architecture planning team. Lessons learned from the lunar lab study were compiled to improve the process and tools for future Forge studies. Forward work, open issues, and challenges to further refine the design of the various science-focused asset options were also documented. By providing a robust science capability at humanity’s furthest outpost, we can plan for a sustained human lunar presence once the initial lunar surface access capability is well established.

Lunar outpost↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors Considerations for Pressurized Crew Transfer Between Ascent or Lander Spacecraft and Surface Assets

An option for pressurized crew transfer between surface assets and lander or ascent spacecraft offers multiple advantages. The most important are the loss of life risks due to crew member injuries or surface spacesuit failures. However, even in nominal scenarios pressurized crew transfer is advantageous, protecting lander and ascent spacecraft as well as launch and entry spacesuits from dust exposure and aiding in adaptation to gravity following prolonged periods of microgravity. Several examples of lunar and Mars lander or ascent spacecraft have been released publicly and can serve as examples of the range of potential vehicles that may benefit from pressurized crew transfer. There are also examples of surface assets that can be used to provide crew transfer, including both current surface mobility or crew transfer concepts and terrestrial examples that could be adapted to use on the Moon or Mars. In all cases, the resulting passageway must be acceptable for use and protected from itself experiencing dust contamination. Key design considerations will be discussed.

Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Multi-Functional, Two-Chamber Airlock Node for a Common Habitat Architecture

An airlock is generally considered a necessity for any large, habitable spacecraft. While suitports, docked rovers, and external robotics can reduce the need for airlock operations, at some point it is necessary to move both crew and equipment from a habitat interior to the exterior environment. The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat that uses the Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Liquid Oxygen tank as the primary structure (similar to Skylab) and has an internal architecture compatible with microgravity, lunar gravity, and Mars gravity, such that identical versions of the same design can be used in all three environments. It needs an airlock that is similarly appropriate for both surface and microgravity environments. After a brief survey of prior airlocks, the two-chamber node airlock concept applied to the Common Habitat architecture is described. This includes benefits of the dual chamber and node approaches, dimensions, hatches and docking ports, utilities connections, hatch covers, suit storage, EVA stowage, subsystems, and gravity-specific external attachments. Additionally, the functions of each chamber and reconfiguration capabilities are explained. Finally, conclusions and follow-on work are discussed.

Robert L Howard↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Challenges, Considerations, and Opportunities for Exercise and Medical Accommodation Inside a Small Pressurized Rover

Pressurized Rovers (PR) can enable crew to explore away from a lander or surface habitat at distances not possible on foot or even in unpressurized rovers. Sustaining crew for multiple days, they can rove for weeks, independent of other surface elements. Because these are essentially mobile habitats, it is critical that they provide sufficient volume to accommodate the exercise and medical systems to maintain human health in remote, low gravity environments such as the Moon and Mars. This is an area of extensive unknowns as requirements have not yet been developed for exercise or medical systems in pressurized rovers. Yet they must be considered in vehicle sizing studies as they are significant volume drivers, requiring allocation for stowed and deployed hardware inside the rover cabin. Previously flown spacecraft have allocated varying amounts of volume based on the expected crew mission and the state of the art in these systems. NASA-STD-3001 provides high-level requirements for standards of medical care and exercise capabilities. Crew injuries are possible both inside the cabin and on extravehicular activities (EVA), therefore requiring medical capability. Exercise countermeasures are needed to counteract the debilitating effects of lowered gravity. This may include both reconditioning following a lengthy microgravity transit as well as ongoing countermeasures against the effect of low surface gravity. The NASA reference concept for the PR dates back to the Constellation Program and prototypes have been extensively tested in NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) program as well as at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The PR cabin is designed to accommodate two crewmembers and is subdivided into a forward cockpit area and a main body for crew habitation. EVAs are accomplished by transitioning through suit ports in the aft bulkhead into spacesuits. While no exercise devices have been developed for the PR, some have been prototyped and demonstrated in DRATS analog missions. A cycle ergometer performed reasonably well in DRATS testing as an aerobic exercise device and recent analysis work has theorized that a combination aerobic and resistive device could be packaged into a form factor similar to the DRATS ergometer. It is therefore suitable for use as an initial volumetric placeholder. No sensorimotor devices have been considered for the PR to aid in adaptation to surface gravity. However, there are commercially available treadmills that at minimum represent examples of the type of exercise system that could potentially be used for such a purpose. A combination of field test data, analysis, and CAD modeling will be used to perform a first pass assessment of whether these exercise devices can be stowed and deployed within the PR. Medical inventories from the International Space Station will be used as a volume placeholder for the PR medical system. A configuration will be discussed for medical deployment, including positioning of caregiver, patient, and medical equipment / supplies.

Pressurized Rover↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitability Considerations for a Notional Five-Day Small Pressurized Rover Excursion

Within the Artemis program, the Pressurized Rover (PR) is intended to support two-person mobile habitation up to roughly thirty days in duration. Lunar surface use of the PR, however, assumes a crew swap approximately halfway through a 33-day surface mission. Within that shorter duration, a rover crew may perform one or more excursions to remote sites in support of specific mission science or operational objectives. An important consideration in rover design is ensuring that the habitation accommodations in the vehicle support these types of missions. No pressurized rovers have ever been used in human spaceflight, but several have been proposed. The current NASA pressurized rover reference configuration is based on the third generation of the prototype small pressurized rover initially developed under Constellation. Using the NASA reference configuration, habitability considerations are discussed in the context of a notional five-day science excursion. The primary focus will be on the time the crew spends in the cabin, as opposed to time spent outside the vehicle on science-based EVAs. On each day of the excursion, the specific crew activities will be detailed. Crew activities that will be assessed include post sleep, EVA preparation, daily planning conference, private medical conference, traverse driving, EVA cabin egress, EVA cabin ingress, post-EVA activity, crew meals, pre-egress site observation and analysis, crew exercise, pre-sleep, and sleep. Considerations for crew fatigue will be discussed, including lessons learned from field testing. Finally, the assessment will identify hypotheses to assess in future analog missions and suitable test campaigns to evaluate them.

Pressurized Rover↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Notional Habitat Science Outfitting for a Lunar Surface Habitat or Mars Transit Habitat

Science outfitting is often given insufficient treatment in the development of early conceptual studies for lunar surface habitats. In some cases, only control masses and volumes are used as placeholders. In others, one science discipline may be given detailed treatment while others are largely ignored. It is not unheard of for science outfitting to be entirely forgotten in initial concept layouts. This is exacerbated by the reality that spacecraft design studies are often initiated long before science objectives have been established for any given human spaceflight destination. When those objectives later emerge, they can be difficult to accommodate if sizing studies did not allocate sufficient resources for them. A notional science outfitting can be created for virtually any human exploration habitat, however, utilizing data created by the International Space Station and Constellation programs. Biology, human research, physics, and geology science laboratories and a general-purpose work area for a lunar surface habitat will be derived using equipment identified by the Constellation-era Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group (OSEWG) or flown on the International Space Station. Early science outfitting definition and inclusion in surface habitat sizing is critical for developing an exploration architecture that meets science needs. The mass, volume, power, and use cases associated with these notional laboratories impacts all of the habitat subsystems, habitat dimensions, hatch dimensions, logistics operations, launch vehicles and landers.

Lunar Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat that uses the Space Launch System core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The primary consideration applied for down-selection was the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments was performed to compare the four variants. A stowage assessment developed a standard logistics module and then considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. It then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the four habitat, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the four variants and also ranked the variants for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond was predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response was evaluated, comparing the four variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data was shown to favor the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full SLS liquid oxygen tank.

Habitability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat

The core stage liquid oxygen tank of the Space Launch System can be manufactured as a habitat instead of as a propellant tank, with a common design such that it is equally suitable for use in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, 1g, or variable artificial gravity. It is capable of sustaining a crew size of eight for missions up to 1200 days in duration. This Common Habitat can be the central element of a human spaceflight architecture that encompasses the Moon, Mars, and other destinations within the inner solar system. Within this archtiecture, the Common Habitat is specifically used as the core habitation element within a Lunar Base Camp, Mars Base Camp, and the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. The Common Habitat internal architecture applies a design philosophy to separate crew functions according to deck. The lower deck is reserved for private functions. It includes eight private crew quarters and four waste and hygiene clusters – each with a private waste management compartment, private full body hygiene compartment, and private foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and remote sensing: astronomy, heliophysics, planetary science, and Earth science), and life science laboratory (biology and human research). The mid deck also has four external hatches, clocked one every 90 degrees, centered on the vehicle vertical centerline. Each hatch has a 60-inch tall by 40-inch wide opening with the mid deck floor 16 inches below the bottom lip of the hatch opening. The upper deck also includes some mission functions, but is primarily allocated to social functions. It includes a large galley, wardroom with projector and display screen, plant growth chambers, bulk stowage, command and control station, medical facility, hygiene compartment, and vehicle subsystems.

Habitability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Viability of Small Dimension Crew Quarters for Surface Habitation

It is possible that in the next twenty years NASA may fly crew quarters on twice as many spacecraft as it has in the past fifty years. In short, US experience with spacecraft crew quarters is limited and with few available standards to guide their design there is significant uncertainty facing spacecraft currently in development, several of which are also subject to substantial mass and volume challenges. Those spacecraft developments will face considerable pressure to minimize crew quarters size, including those intended for use on the lunar surface. Given that a crew quarters is the only space a crew member can call his or her own during missions that can last weeks to years in duration, providing an appropriate volume is especially important. This is even more critical when one considers the reality that all crew quarters flown to date have been smaller than minimum standards for US jail cells. This research will categorize functional capabilities of crew quarters and explore physical and virtual prototypes of small crew quarters that have attempted to include these capabilities. The Exploration Atmospheres Test at NASA Johnson Space Center represents the first opportunity to collect multi-day test data on crew quarters of this size in a gravitational environment. Intended to validate exploration prebreathe protocols, this test will house eight people inside a vacuum chamber that has been outfitted as a habitat prototype for twelve days. In addition to their other test activity, the crew will evaluate the acceptability of their crew quarters. This data will aid in establishing design guidelines for crew quarters in both short and long duration missions beyond low Earth orbit.

Crew Quarters↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Functional Volume Assessment of an Early Version of the Mars Transit Habitat

During the summer of 2020, NASA assessed the transit habitat concept that was being used in Mars human exploration architecture studies. This assessment had six primary objectives: (1) provide a sanity check to the transit habitat concept layout; (2) understand if we can fit the hardware and functional tasks in the volume; (3) provide a high-level assessment of how aggressive the layout is; (4) generate a list of challenges or assumptions necessary to make it work; (5) generate a list of future work to refine understanding; and (6) identify proposed requirements. The results of this evaluation are discussed, including methodological challenges and rating challenges. Acceptability results are discussed for functions that the participants were able to rate and participant comments for functions that could not be evaluated are also described. Final conclusions are described, including challenges or assumptions needed to make the transit habitat concept design acceptable, future work needed to refine understanding of the transit habitat concept, and proposed habitat requirements based on test data. While NASA has since moved away from this architecture, the assessment is still useful to inform the design of future transit habitats or other deep space crewed vehicles.

Transit Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗