Engineering topics

Robert Lee Howard, Jr.

Publications and source records attributed to Robert Lee Howard, Jr..

7 records

NASA NTRS2020

Habitability Lessons Learned from Field Testing of a Small Pressurized Rover

From 2008 to 2010, the NASA Small Pressurized Rover was tested in the Arizona desert in anticipation of human lunar surface missions. These tests were multi-day mission simulations with crew living in and conducting simulated lunar surface EVAs from the rover prototypes for 3, 7, or 14 days. This two-person surface spacecraft represents a departure from most previous lunar architectures, which either featured Apollo-class unpressurized rovers or large pressurized rovers – in some cases up to the scale of being considered mobile outposts. This paper will discuss the history of the Small Pressurized Rover, some of the values of field testing, the rover’s design evolution including the two prototypes tested in the field, key features and advantages of the SPR, the field test site location, the 2008, 2009, and 2010 field tests, habitability lessons learned from the testing, comparisons with follow-on laboratory/high bay testing, and recommendations for third generation rover design and flight vehicle development.

Pressurized Rover↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat developed as an alternative architecture study, not part of the current NASA baseline, that uses the SLS 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 four-crew variants use a shortened version of the tank while the eight-crew variants use the entire tank. The primary consideration applied for down-selection is 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 were performed to compare the variants. This analysis was performed as an unfunded, volunteer activity leveraging civil servants across multiple field centers, most with expertise working in various Artemis teams. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to the use of CAD models, images, and spreadsheet data, with no resources available for mockups or Virtual Reality. A logistics analysis developed a standard logistics module and 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. It also considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the habitats, 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 variants and also ranked them 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 were predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response were evaluated, comparing the 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 favored 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 tank.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

During the summer of 2020, the NASA Mars Architecture Team (MAT) conducted a functional volume assessment of the Transit Habitat (TH). The TH has evolved substantially since that time and the current TH does not share the same internal configuration, but the insights gained from the assessment remain relevant. In virtually all architectures involving chemical, electric, or nuclear propulsion, the majority of the crew mission is spent aboard the TH. The Earth to Mars transit durations may vary from architecture to architecture, but all are on the order of hundreds of days, regardless of whether an opposition or conjunction class trajectory is selected, and regardless of whether the propulsion system is chemical, electric, or nuclear. Thus, the TH must provide capabilities appropriate to a very long duration. So, despite significant changes in the current Mars architecture over the past few years, this evaluation still provides useful recommendations in the form of habitability guidance that can be applied to current and future TH concepts. This assessment had six primary objectives: provide a sanity check to the BOC-derived TH layout; understand if we can fit the hardware and functional tasks in the volume; provide a high-level assessment of how aggressive the layout is; generate a list of challenges or assumptions necessary to make it work; generate a list of future work to refine understanding; and identify proposed requirements. All of this information is critical to drive habitat sizing studies and key architecture decisions. It was clear that a human-in-the-loop (HITL) evaluation of some kind would be necessary, but several challenges were immediately identified. The most information could be gleaned from a Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) type of mission operations test (MOT), but the TH concept was too low fidelity to construct the type of prototype necessary to conduct a MOT, nor were their financial resources to do so. The next best option – and really the one most appropriate for the BOC’s stage of maturity – is a Virtual Reality (VR) walk-through evaluation. However, NASA was in a shutdown state due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the VR labs were inaccessible. As a result, a tabletop evaluation was created, using .jpg imagery from the ECM CAD model along with Excel-based datasheets. High-level crew living and working functions within the habitat were identified for evaluation. Questionnaires using Likert scales assessed acceptability of habitat functions and sim quality – the degree to which the function was represented in CAD. This enabled the evaluation to be conducted by personnel working remotely. Each function was evaluated individually along with several overarching habitability parameters and vehicle subsystems. 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 related are also described. Final conclusions are described, including challenges or assumptions needed to make the TH design acceptable, future work needed to refine understanding of the TH, and proposed habitat requirements based on test data.

Transit Habitat↗

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. 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. The Common Habitat is specifically used within an alternative architecture study (that is not part of the current NASA baseline) as the core habitation element within a Lunar Basecamp, Mars Basecamp, 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 foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related working functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and astronomy), 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 is primarily allocated to group or 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. A Vertical Translation System, based in part on results from a GrabCAD public challenge, enables crew and equipment traverse between habitat decks in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. A 40-inch by 60-inch vertical translation corridor ensures that anything that can fit through the external hatches can also be moved from deck to deck. The system includes three component systems: a deploying floor to safety barrier system that folds down to become a traversable floor when vertical translation is not in use and deploys to become a safety barrier during vertical translations; a folding ladder that stows in the ceiling when not in use; and an elevator platform that can attach to the ladder for cargo or incapacitated crew member transport. This system is complemented by a Horizontal Translation System, also based in part on the same GrabCAD challenge, provides for horizontal crew translation in microgravity but requires no vehicle reconfiguration for fractional or whole gravity operation. It relies primarily on gecko-inspired grippers, originally developed at Stanford and NASA JPL, attached to footwear to enable crew to emulate walking. Some handrails are also strategically placed throughout the Common Habitat to aid translation in both gravity and microgravity environments.

Common Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Assessment of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module

Johnson Space Center is piloting an innovation team known as the Forge to perform rapid turnaround, concurrent engineering studies. The Forge is intended to be able to pull together a team of strategically selected domain experts to innovatively solve a specified problem within a short period of time. The Forge’s inaugural project being the development of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module concept. The lab module is intended as an option for the Artemis program’s Lunar Architecture Team. The lab module may allow for increased science productivity and return on investment than a surface architecture with only the habitat. This paper will discuss the configuration of the Lunar Laboratory module, including the pressure vessel, its placement relative to the Surface Habitat and Pressurized Rover, and internal architecture. In order to determine the suitability of such a design, a human factors evaluation is conducted. Historically, a human factors evaluation of a habitable volume could require a month or longer, including time needed to prepare a test plan, conduct the evaluation, compile the data, and produce a report. The entire Forge effort will only last for five weeks, forcing the creation of a rapid assessment process. This rapid assessment includes three evaluation studies, all conducted and processed in the space of a single day, to determine the acceptability of the resulting design. The first evaluation is a card sort evaluation of the laboratory instruments. A brief discussion of the card sort evaluation is provided. This card sort is focused on the relative positioning of the laboratory instruments, determining whether a given instrument should be adjacent to, or separated from, another. It will use human factors personnel and both life and physical scientists as subject matter experts. The second evaluation is a science productivity tabletop evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the selection of instruments and the number of instruments, attempting to assess the amount of work the crew will be able to use the facility to do. It uses life and physical science personnel as subject matter experts. The third evaluation is a CAD or Virtual Reality human factors walkthrough evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the layout of the lab module and its connectivity to the basecamp’s pressurized elements. If possible, astronauts will be used as subject matter experts. Each of these evaluations will focus primarily on objective data with limited subjective comments, reducing the time required for processing responses. The results of each evaluation and their implications will be discussed. Based on the evaluation data, an overall acceptability of the Lunar Surface Laboratory Module produced by the Forge study can be determined. Lessons learned and recommendations for future use of the human factors rapid assessment process in early design trades will also be provided.

Lunar Laboratory↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis program established the goal to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, but that is only the beginning of the program. Artemis plans to move towards a sustainable phase, with four crew living on the lunar surface for roughly 30-day annual missions, operating from a Pressurized Rover (PR) and a Surface Habitat (SH). The crew will split up – two living and operating from the PR and the others in the SH, perhaps swapping places halfway through the surface mission. There is a significant degree of maturity surrounding PR operations due to the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies field tests from 2007-2011. However, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding activity in the SH, with anecdotal speculation among some Artemis lunar surface engineers that the SH crew might not be fully utilized. Contrary to this belief, there is evidence in US human spaceflight history that the SH crew may instead be extremely busy. In particular, portions of the STS-94 Microgravity Science Lab mission demonstrate a science-based use case for crew activity in the SH. Fifteen Spacelab missions (not including STS-83, which was terminated early due to a fuel cell problem and reflown as STS-94) and eight Spacehab missions used the previously mentioned modules as science labs to expand the science capability of shuttle orbital missions, most flown prior to the assembly of the International Space Station. STS-94 is selected as an example of these flights. STS-94 was a 15.7-day mission with a 7-person crew. The crew operated in split 12-hour shifts, enabling 24-hour science operations. STS-94 used the space shuttle Columbia with the Spacelab module and Extended Duration Orbiter pallet in the cargo bay. The STS-94 physical science investigations were intended to explore various physical aspects of microgravity. These same investigations can be conducted on the Moon to explore 1/6 gravity. The Spacelab module was outfitted with several key facilities to enable this research: Large Isothermal Furnace, Combustion Module-1, Droplet Combustion Experiment, EXPRESS Rack, TEMPUS, Gravity Measurement Devices, and Middeck Glovebox. The current reference concept for the SH is a hybrid inflatable in a vertical orientation. Fairly typical of hybrid inflatables, the SH has an aluminum core pressurized section and a larger inflatable volume, in this case attaching to the top of the core. Two crew will live in the SH at a time, though four can briefly occupy the habitat, such as for contingency or handover activities. This paper will discuss use of the STS-94 physical science equipment in the SH and options for the architectural layout of a resulting physics laboratory. It will also discuss how this laboratory may accompany other science facilities such as biology, human research, and geology. The person hours used by the STS-94 crew to conduct physical science research will be estimated and then mapped to a two-person SH crew, making it possible to determine how many days are required in the SH to complete the lunar gravity physical science investigations at varying levels of crew availability.

STS-94↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Viability of Small Dimension Crew Quarters for Surface Habitation

During early planning for the Artemis program’s sustained phase of lunar activity, NASA planners have been held to work towards a NASA reference lunar lander concept. With this activity taking place prior to the awarding of a lander contract, NASA planners cannot assume which of several potential landers will be available. This has limited habitation team engineers to a 12-metric ton mass limit for the reference concept of the lunar Surface Habitat. Consequently, minimal approaches have been applied to many habitat systems and it is important to determine acceptable volume for crew quarters. A number of both NASA and non-NASA surface habitat concepts have proposed relatively small crew quarters due to this constraint. Consequently, there is a need to collect objective test data to confirm or refute the validity of small crew quarters. NASA-STD-3001 is looked to for guidance in its many standards but offers little to no help. While prior versions called for private habitation, the current version – Revision B – calls for “individual privacy” to “accommodate social retreat.” Proposed Revision C modifications change the language slightly to “accommodate sleep and social retreat.” This is not enough guidance to determine the size of a crew quarters or even its capabilities. Unfortunately, only a small number of US spacecraft have included crew quarters, primarily the International Space Station and the Skylab Space Station. The space shuttle orbiter sometimes flew a set of private bunks that some might consider a crew quarters. All of these are dramatically smaller than US standards for minimum jail cells. The first opportunity for NASA to test a small crew quarters in a surface habitat application has been created through the Exploration Atmospheres test series, which is evaluating human performance under reduced cabin pressures. The test is converting the 20-Foot Vacuum Chamber at Johnson Space Center into a habitat, with the lower level outfitted as an EVA test area and the upper two levels for human habitation. The test will place eight people (six test subjects and two technicians) inside the chamber for eleven days. All eight will sleep in private quarters during the test. Volume limitations in the chamber forced extremely small crew quarters, measuring approximately 2 meters in length, 0.85 meters in height, and 0.9 meters in width. The test cabin pressure of 8.2 psi and elevated oxygen also introduces significant material limitations, limiting outfitting options. Nonetheless, the crew quarters design requirements were to accommodate visual separation, auditory separation, olfactory separation, tactile separation, air flow control, lighting control, single person personal computing, physical work surface access, sleep accommodations, non-sleep rest/relaxation, meditation, stretching, two-person meetings, snacking, changing clothes, viewing appearance, video communication, and audio communication. This paper will detail the acceptability of the crew quarters as measured in the October 2021 Exploration Atmosphere test. Based on this data, the viability of the type of crew quarters used in the 20 Foot Chamber will be assessed. Design recommendations for a 30-60-day Surface Habitat crew quarters will be provided, along with recommendations for future testing.

Crew Quarters↗