Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Tracie Prater

Publications and source records attributed to Tracie Prater.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Deep Space Habitation: Enabling a Sustained Human Presence on the Moon and Beyond

As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, so too does its roadmap toward a sustained crewed presence on the surface of the Moon and eventual human missions to Mars. The first launch of the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, the contract award for the first demonstrations of a Human Landing System, and the beginning of construction on the initial elements of the lunar Gateway have marked major milestones toward NASA’s near-term exploration goals: a long-duration outpost in orbit around the Moon and the next footsteps on the lunar surface. At the same time, NASA is in the early phases of planning the capabilities that will be needed for long-term exploration. Among the common elements that will be required by long-duration stays on the lunar surface, transit to Mars, and Martian surface expeditions will be new habitats unlike any flown to date. NASA is currently working on development of both architectures for those habitats and on the technological advancements that will enable them, with an eye toward systems that will not only extend mission operations but also provide for living quarters that will keep the crew happy and healthy throughout their expeditions. Beyond the Gateway habitation needs, these capabilities will need to be defined and advanced to support the initial lunar surface missions and to prepare for human missions to the Mars system. The Surface Habitat is the current concept in consideration to serve as this initial surface habitat that will extend the crew mission durations. It will provide 30-to-60-day habitability for a crew of up to four allowing for the astronauts to explore farther and longer on each visit to the lunar surface. NASA is also currently reviewing opportunities to use current or near-term in-space habitation systems as proving grounds or precursors for keeping astronauts safe and healthy during future transits to Mars. Already, the International Space Station (ISS) is being used for implementation of next-generation life-support systems that will inform those used in exploration habitats, and the operations approach for ISS is providing lessons-learned for future science operations around or on the Moon.1U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright While a suite of habitation concepts is currently under study within NASA, the agency is also working closely with U.S. industry through the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) activity to understand their concepts for commercially provided habitation capabilities as well as close coordination with international partners to understand their desires for in-space and surface habitation. This paper will provide a status of these concepts and partnership activities as well as potential future technology and architecture development paths.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Habitat Outfitting Portfolio: Technology Development to Support Future Habitation Systems

Habitat outfitting generally refers to the supplies and equipment (and installation thereof) which provide crew with a livable, safe environment during a mission and enable the performance of mission tasks. Outfitting will be needed on future missions for habitation to provide the crew with a livable and safe environment. Both softgoods inflatable habitats, which are packaged and deployed/inflated at the point of use, and constructed habitats, which may be manufactured using in situ resource-derived materials on a planetary surface, will require more outfitting than traditional habitation approaches using rigid metallic structures (such as the International Space Station), where many elements can launch pre-integrated. For softgoods inflatable habitats, it is anticipated that much of the outfitting would be performed by crew, while in constructed habitation scenarios outfitting may be done by robotic systems as part of precursor missions. This paper provides an overview of future planned habitats and outfitting needs, technology gaps related to outfitting, and current work under NASA’s habitat systems development, in-space manufacturing, and habitat construction portfolios related to this topic.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Inflatable Softgoods Testing Capability Development for Habitation

The Habitation Systems Development Office (HP40) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center supports systems engineering, integration, and project management for next generation space habitats. The office is responsible for formulation activities for Lunar Surface Habitat and Mars Transit Habitat. HP40 also manages commercial partnerships for exploration habitat development. The Lunar Surface Habitat is intended to initially support a minimum of two crew on the lunar surface for an approximately 30-day mission, with the ability to accommodate four crew for short durations. The Mars Transit Habitat will transport four crew to and from Mars orbit on a potentially 1,200 day mission. Both concepts are envisioned to leverage inflatable softgoods as the primary structural material for the habitation portion of the architecture. Inflatable softgoods are a complex, multi-material system consisting of multiple layers which perform specific functions. A bladder layer (polymer) contains the habitat’s atmosphere. The bladder is indexed to a woven restraint layer, usually Kevlar or Vectran, which serves as the structural layer. The remaining outer layers are for micro-meteoroid orbital debris (MMOD) shielding, protection from atomic Oxygen (if the material system is to be deployed in low earth orbit), and thermal insulation. The primary advantage of inflatable softgoods is that they can offer a larger volume per unit mass relative to a rigid metal structure. Inflatable softgoods have a strong development heritage within NASA, beginning with work in the 1960s in partnership with Goodyear Aerospace and continuing with Johnson Space Center’s TransHab project in the 1990s . Some development efforts subsequently transitioned into the private sector to mature the material technology for flight applications, including human habitation. In August 2022, NASA published its guidelines for certification of crewed inflatable softgoods structures (JSC-67721). This document outlines a series of tests which will be needed to certify inflatable softgoods material systems for use in crewed mission applications. It includes burst testing at the subscale and full-scale to determine the ultimate burst pressure of the softgoods architecture. Creep (long term deformation of the material under stress) is a key failure mode which must be characterized. Creep testing at the component and module levels is also recommended to generate time to failure curves and verify that the inflatable system has a predicted operational life which exceeds mission parameters. ET (Test Engineering) at MSFC and HP40 have worked together to establish softgoods testing capabilities for the center. This includes the ability to conduct module level burst tests and creep tests. The poster will highlight these capabilities and provide examples of testing which has been performed to date by ET. NASA MSFC anticipates that these test capabilities will continue to offer critical support for companies pursuing inflatable softgoods for exploration applications (lunar surface habitation, Mars transit) as well as commercial low earth orbit platforms.

habitation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Capability Gaps Assessment and Identification of Critical Technology Elements for Mars Transit Habitat

The Habitation Systems Development Office (HP40) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center supports systems engineering, integration, and project management for next generation space habitats. For in space operations and eventual transport of humans to Mars, NASA will rely on a Mars Transit Habitat (TH). The TH will be designed for an up to 1,200-day Mars mission and will carry all food and supplies needed to support four crew for this duration. In the current concept of operations, Mars TH transfers to near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) following launch and docks at Gateway as a visiting vehicle. While there, the TH will complete system shakedown testing and a series of analog missions which will grow from 3 to 6+ months in duration TH also augments Gateway’s habitation capabilities beyond 60-days. Proposed Gateway-TH missions will far exceed the longest duration cislunar human missions to date. These shakedown missions will also be the first operational readiness tests of Mars TH’s long-duration deep space systems, and of the split crew (two crew on the surface, two crew in space) operations that are vital to the approach for the first human Mars mission. Once shakedown missions are complete, Mars TH departs Gateway to aggregate with the Mars propulsion system in NRHO before onboarding the crew and final supplies in Earth orbit via a co-manifested Orion-logistics module. Orion and the LM return to Earth prior to the now aggregated Deep Space Transport vehicle’s journey to Mars. Development of the Mars TH requires significant technology development and maturation. Each year the agency performs a capability gaps assessment, where gaps developed by subject matter experts (SMEs) in various engineering/science disciplines are linked to architectural elements in formulation and prioritized. A gap captures the difference between the current state-of-the-art and the maturity of the capability that is needed to enable or enhance a mission as it is currently envisioned in the government reference architecture. HP40 conducted a gap analysis for Mars TH which will be summarized in this poster. Gaps classified as enabling (which means the mission cannot achieve success without gap closure) were subsequently used to identify critical technology elements (CTEs) for Mars TH. This identification of CTEs was also informed by an examination of the product breakdown structure for Mars TH and focused conversations with SMEs in specific technology areas. CTEs identified for Mars TH to date include the following (note this is not a comprehensive list – CTEs listed represent those in MSFC’s capability areas): inflatable softgoods for habitation; enhanced CO2 recovery; life support systems with greater levels of reliability and maintainability; autonomous guidance, navigation, command and control; and radiators for the Mars TH application. The habitation systems development team is currently delving deeper into each CTE to assess technology approaches being pursued, their maturity, and the degree of difficulty in maturation to meet projected Mars TH timelines. This poster will summarize work to date on the identification of enabling capability gaps linked to Mars TH and provide insight into the associated CTEs and technology maturation efforts.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Repair Maintenance and Fabrication Facility in the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat Architecture seeks to increase the habitability of long-duration human spaceflight systems. A key aspect of this is vehicle survivability. Missions beyond low Earth orbit need onboard capabilities for Repair, Maintenance, And Fabrication (RMAF) to overcome potential contingency scenarios. Strategies employed in historic human spaceflight such as redundancy management, reliability, sparing, orbital replacement units, and aborts may be insufficient by themselves. Based on subject matter input, a list of 53 critical failures defining a set of incidents that can render a key spacecraft subsystem inoperable were generated. A subsequent analysis found that a robust in-space RMAF system capable of performing 14 key functions can potentially repair a subsystem plagued by any of these failures. An ancillary benefit is this capability may provide psychological benefits to the crew, by enabling greater self-sufficiency in earth-independent problem solving. A basic RMAF facility has been defined for the Common Habitat, consisting of five workstations. A work bench and computer workstation provide a multipurpose horizontal work surface, computing interface, and tools storage. A CNC machining center provides a subtractive manufacturing capability for metals and plastics. A multi-material 3D printing facility provides additive manufacturing capabilities for plastic, metals, and printed electronics. A welding facility is used for joining metal components where a higher strength is needed than can be achieved with fasteners or adhesives. A glovebox facility is used to perform work that is too hazardous for any of the other workstations. This may include hardware brought in from outside the spacecraft that could potentially contaminate the cabin environment. Forward work includes considering the accommodation of additional manufacturing processes not modeled in the current system, assessing the ability of systems to operate in partial gravity and microgravity environments, incorporation of the system into the Common Habitat Computer Aided Design (CAD) model, bottoms-up mass estimating, and a crew time analysis.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing the Relocation of Artemis Foundational Lunar Surface Concepts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has defined a functionally based Moon to Mars (M2M) architecture consisting of four key human exploration segments: human lunar return (HLR), foundational exploration (FE), sustained lunar evolution (SLE), and humans to Mars (H2M). These segments are portions of the architecture which represent a stepwise increase in complexity and achievement of M2M objectives [1]. As systems are deployed during the FE segment, it may be desired or even necessary to relocate these elements on the lunar surface as the architecture transitions into the SLE segment. While some Artemis elements under development, such as rovers, are being designed for mobility during both crewed and uncrewed/dormant periods, other architectural concepts do not currently carry a mobility capability. In preparation for the Agency’s 2023 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), a team was assembled to establish a methodology for assessing the relocation feasibility of normally stationary elements. Such a capability could be applied locally or regionally, and might allow for re-purposing previously occupied terrain, expansion of exploration range, aggregation of habitation elements, or retiring systems at the end of their useful service life. The assembled NASA team investigated the relocation trade space through defining a representative concept of operations (ConOps) and assessing possible system impacts. The team focused predominately on the relocation of medium and large surface habitat architectural concepts through surface-based traverses utilizing separable mobility platforms (SMP). A representative mobility platform model was placed through simulation to analyze the possible energy requirements and dynamic illumination impacts. Preliminary assessment indicated that element relocation might be achievable, however significant system and architectural-level risks still need to be quantified. Future analysis will assist in determining what degree of element relocation provides the greatest benefit to achieving a sustained lunar presence. [1] NASA. (2022). Moon to Mars Objectives. Retrieved from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf

Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Full-Scale Burst Testing for Inflatable Softgoods

Inflatable softgoods are complex, multi-material system in which each layer performs a specific function. NASA is supporting the private sector in development and testing of inflatable softgoods architectures through public-private partnerships. Inflatable softgoods represent one structural material option for future habitation platforms.

habitation↗