Stephen James Edwards

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards a Common Basis of Comparison Across a Broad Trade Space of Mars Architecture Options

Humanity’s fascination with Mars predates the advent of space access, but the coming-of-age of rocket propulsion in the mid-20th century provided the technological foundation for considering a human visit to the red planet. Werner von Braun’s “The Mars Project,” published in 1953, is acknowledged as the first integrated Mars mission architecture plan [1]; since then, the reformulation and refinement of Mars architectures and system concepts has been an ongoing activity, as continued study and planning for human Mars missions is necessary in order to incorporate evolving mission objectives, technology advancements, and the increasing body of knowledge regarding human factors and the various environments of space. Historical Mars architecture studies represent an enormous body of work, but apart from a couple of high-level reviews [2], tapping into the findings and philosophies of these varied works entails a tedious and time-consuming individual effort. The unfortunate result of the widely scattered corpus of Mars architectures is that knowledge and understanding acquired in previous studies is not consistently and effectively brought to bear in the studies of today. The primary vehicle for bringing forward past learning is human recall, which both is imperfect and experiences significant attrition. An effort is underway in the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to recapture and re-baseline previous architecture studies in order to establish a broad basis of comparison for future Mars architecture studies. Recapturing involves gathering and organizing data and documentation from previous efforts; re-baselining entails developing models capable of reproducing the original results, and then utilizing these models to implement a common set of ground rules and assumptions across the resulting trade space of Mars architecture options. This paper will present the methodology ACO is employing in performing this architecture meta-study, including a discussion on the challenges involved in re-baselining without losing the intent behind previous concepts. As part of this discussion some initial results will be presented, along with a list of studies targeted for inclusion. It is expected that the completed basis of comparison results will be presented as a follow-on paper in the following year.

Stephen James Edwards↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Alternative Architectures for Cargo Lunar Landers

NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program has been working with commercial partners to develop human-class lunar landers to return the first American woman and next American man to the lunar surface in the mid 2020’s. In an effort to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, NASA’s Artemis program aims to facilitate a sustainable, long-term human presence in cis-lunar space. A component of this will require significant infrastructure to be delivered to the lunar surface. Delivering this infrastructure will require a significant lander capability that has yet to be developed. A thorough understanding of cargo lunar lander architectures is required such that select alternatives can be identified that best support the Artemis program’s objective of sustainability. The goal of this study is to aid NASA and its partners in the understanding of the cargo lunar lander trades space, as well as identify potential robust alternatives. The results will support NASA as it moves forward with key activities such as requirements formulation, agency strategic planning, and potential cargo lunar lander procurements. The study builds off of recent work performed by the Human Landing System program’s Architecture and Systems Analysis group to encompass a broad trade space of cargo lunar lander architecture alternatives. The current trade space as depicted by the morphological matrix and mission graph in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, includes key alternative options that have become highly relevant due to current HLS activities and include on-orbit refueling, active cryogenic fluid management, Earth orbit aggregation, and global lunar access. The authors believe that there is also a statistically relevant impact of lander-payload configuration on the primary structure of the vehicle that could greatly impact alternative selection. Because of this, several conceptual lander-payload configurations will be evaluated to determine the level of impact. The current set of conceptual configurations are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. To aid the conceptual evaluation of these configurations, a catalogue of notional payloads has been developed that represent a wide range of masses and volumes that are expected to be delivered in support of a sustained human lunar presence, including pressurized and unpressurized rovers, surface habitats, power systems, and other support infrastructure. In order to execute this study in a timely fashion, a similar approach to that utilized in a similar 2019 study focused on 2024 human lunar sorties will be employed [1]. The team utilized a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC to evaluate over 600,000 lunar lander architectures over a two month time frame [2]. From this large data set, varying ground rules and assumptions were applied as filters to explore the trade space to identify alternatives which exhibited robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The set of Earth-Moon system Delta-Vs assumed from the 2019 study, shown in Fig. 5, will be repurposed to accelerate model formulation for this effort. Additionally, current efforts in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace System Design Lab will be integrated to provide probabilistic modeling of the cargo lunar lander architectures to aid in identifying robust design alternatives [3]. The approach will help minimize potential impacts due to large levels of uncertainty inherent to pre phase-A conceptual design. By leveraging these past and present studies and partnerships, a highly detailed set of data can be generated in a short time period to aid NASA in the coming years to support the goal of a sustained human lunar presence.

Architectures↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Concepts Office

Capabilities Overview: About the Advanced Concepts Office - ACO informs decision makers by providing rapid, Pre-Phase A concept designs and studies for space systems - Multi-disciplinary team representing all engineering disciplines - Work Pre-Phase A concept designs and studies - Analysis of alternatives - Quantitative technology assessments - Systems analysis and optimization

Eric C. Sholes↗