Engineering topics

Therese Jones

Publications and source records attributed to Therese Jones.

7 records

NASA NTRS2024

Non-interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as general principles for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper presents a draft framework for review and feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”.

Marissa S Herron↗

NASA NTRS2024

Non-interference of Lunar Activities (Town Hall)

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as general principles for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This session seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The session proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Marissa S Herron↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions. Therese Jones1, Gabriel Swiney,1 and Katie McBrayer,2 1NASA HQ, 300 Hidden Figures Way SW, Washington, D.C. 20546, 2NASA Langley Re-search Center, 1 NASA Drive, Hampton, VA, 23666. (Contact: therese.m.jones@nasa.gov) Introduction: More than two dozen lunar missions are planned prior to the Artemis III crewed lunar landing, from Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and U.S. government orbiters and landers to Commercial Lunar Payload Ser-vices missions to commercial crewed flybys. While the Artemis Accords have established an international consortium of countries seeking to mitigate interference between operations on the Moon, a number of unaddressed policy issues remain that may be critical to lunar operations. In this lightning talk, we build upon NASA’s Of-fice of Technology, Policy, and Strategy’s Sep-tember 2022 Report “Lunar Landing and Oper-ations Policy Analysis” [1], to give an overview of policy questions that remain open, including: whether to prioritize certain landing locations or avoid certain scientifically valuable locations, design and coordination of safety zones, notifi-cation of other actors of potential dangers posed by landing, whether to avoid placing equipment in operationally valuable locations, and end-of-life disposal. We will also discuss how these policy implications could apply to planned missions.. References: [1] Swiney, G., and Hernandez, A. Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analy-sis, NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy, September 30, 2022 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-otps-lunar-landing-and-operations-policy-analysis-final-report_2.pdf

Therese Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as standards and best practices for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference” and “contamination”.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Benefits of a Proposed Process to Preserve Lunar Sites

Assets in lunar orbit and on the surface, whether operational or defunct, have the ability to cause inadvertent interference with proximity operations. As missions to the Moon continue to proliferate, and as more actors become involved, a mechanism is needed to bring communities together to ensure ones' actions do not inhibit the mission objectives of another. A mechanism may also be needed to determine whether any locations on the Moon or in its orbit are of high value to various users, and, pending potential decreases in this value due to interference and other concerns, warrant mitigative actions to preserve these locations. Such a mechanism could provide benefits to all those involved, including governments, industry, academia, and other interested groups. We present a notional process to aggregate community interests for lunar sites and orbits. We then consider two user needs and explore how this process could be used to identify potential alignments and misalignments across communities.

preservation↗