Engineering topics

Young, Kelsey E.

Publications and source records attributed to Young, Kelsey E..

8 records

NASA NTRS2018

Field Camp for Astronauts: NASA's Geoscience Training Program for Planetary Exploration

Fifty years ago Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon to explore the geology and collect samples for Earth return. Several authors have discussed the strategic planning and training that enabled the Apollo successes, and assembled recommendations regarding today’s lunar science objectives and astronaut training required to achieve those science goals. Since the 1980s, geoscience training for astronauts focused on observing the Earth from orbit. Today, we are building a geoscience training program to support informed Earth observations as well as the exploration culture for future human missions to the Moon and Mars. Our team partnered with JSC’s crew training and astronaut offices to develop our 4-week geoscience program for the 2017 astronaut class. Because the astronauts have a variety of professional backgrounds, we provide a broad introduction to Earth and planetary sciences. But our prime focus is 2 weeks of intensive field work, a methodology introduced with the 2013 astronaut class. We completed the first half of the training – a field trip to observe hurricane deposits along Galveston Bay; keynotes by Apollo colleagues highlighting Apollo experiences; a tightly-integrated week of introductory geology in the classroom followed by a week of fieldwork in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. The classroom included interactive map exercises that allowed the students to progressively build a base map of the field area that they used as a starting point for their week-long mapping exercise. We divided the class into small mapping groups to conduct their observations, mapping and interpretation of the geology. In addition to learning geological field work, our field training provided the platform for practicing expeditionary leadership, a key skill set valued by NASA for astronaut crews. Next summer the capstone fieldwork for the 2017 astronauts will include both mapping and rock sampling. Throughout the mapping, the class will collect additional data to help inform field and sampling decisions using diagnostic field instruments that are being tested in analog settings for their operational efficacy for future planetary exploration.

Evans, Cynthia A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Utility of a Small Pressurized Rover with Suit Ports for Lunar Exploration: A Geologist's Perspective

Rover trade study: As summarized recently, mission simulations at Black Point Lava Flow (Arizona) that included realistic extravehicular activity (EVA) tasking, accurate traverse timelines, and an in-loop science CAPCOM (or SciCOM) showed that a small pressurized rover (SPR) was a better mobility asset than an unpressurized rover (UPR). Traverses within the SPR were easier on crew than spending an entire day in a spacesuit, enhancing crew productivity at each station. The SPR, named Lunar Electric Rover (LER), and sometimes called the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), could also provide shelter during a suit malfunction, radiation event, or medical emergency that might occur on the Moon. Intravehicular activity (IVA) capabilities: From within the vehicle, crew could describe and photo-document distant features during drives between stations, as well as in the near-field, directly in front of the LER, providing an ability to begin EVA planning on approach to each outcrop prior to egress. The vehicle can rotate 360º without any lateral movement, providing views in all directions. It has high-visibility windows, a ForeCam, AftCam, port and starboard cameras, docking cameras, and a GigaPan camera. EVA capabilities: To reduce timeline, mass, and volumetric overhead, rapid egress and ingress were envisioned, replacing an airlock with lower cabin pressure than on the International Space Station and suit ports on the aft cabin wall [2]. When needed for closer inspection and sample collecting, crew could egress in about 10 minutes through suit ports. Crew use SuitCams for additional photo-documentation, transmit mobile observations verbally, and collect surface materials. Typical simulations involved 3 to 4 EVA stations/day and 2 to 3 hr/day of boots on the ground. This allowed crew to explore a far larger territory, with more complex geological and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) features, than would a single, longer-duration EVA at one location, while also minimizing crew time in a spacesuit. Additionally, the vehicle could be driven with crew locked into the suit ports. This approach could involve a driver in the cockpit with a suited crewmember in a suit port, or the vehicle could be driven from the aft deck with both crewmembers in their suit ports. This approach was used when distances between stops were short enough that vehicle ingress and egress were less efficient than remaining in the suits and driving. Utility of suit ports: The advantages of suit ports were clearly demonstrated in those field-based trade studies. To illustrate those advantages further, consider the consequences of a SPR without suit ports at the Apollo 17 landing site. At that site, the crew's second EVA was an approximately 18 km loop conducted in a UPR, called the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), in 7 hr 36 min 56 s. The traverse was composed of 5 formal stations, plus 8 additional LRV stations where crew made brief scientific stops. In a scenario involving a SPR without suit ports, crew would go EVA through an airlock and probably be limited to a single EVA per day. In that case, crew could drive the SPR ~9 km from the landing site to station 2, go EVA, and complete station 2 tasks. However, to conduct station 3 tasks, the crew would then need to walk approximately 3 km to station 3, while ground control in Houston tele-robotically drives the LER to station 3. A walk of approximately 3 km is possible, as that is what the Apollo 14 crew did before LRVs were deployed, but it is a lengthy and potentially grueling EVA. Assuming crew completes station 3 tasks, they would likely need to re-enter the SPR, ending the day's EVA, and return to the landing site. They would not be able to walk the additional distances to stations 4 and 5 (the latter being about 6 km from station 3). Thus, crew in an SPR without suit ports would require two days to accomplish the same tasks Apollo 17 crew completed in a single day. If a future crew is involved in long duration traverses on the lunar surface, the deployment of a vehicle with suit ports would probably be a better solution.

Kring, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Integration of an Earth-Based Science Team During Human Exploration of Mars

NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission-like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. A mission was undertaken in 2016, NEEMO 21, at the Aquarius undersea research habitat. During the mission, the effects of varied oper-ations concepts with representative communication latencies as-sociated with Mars missions were studied. Six subjects were weighed out to simulate partial gravity and evaluated different operations concepts for integration and management of a simulated Earth-based science team (ST) who provided input and direction during exploration activities. Exploration traverses were planned in advance based on precursor data collected. Subjects completed science-related tasks including presampling surveys and marine-science-based sampling during saturation dives up to 4 hours in duration that simulated extravehicular activity (EVA) on Mars. A communication latency of 15 minutes in each direction between space and ground was simulated throughout the EVAs. Objective data included task completion times, total EVA time, crew idle time, translation time, ST assimilation time (defined as time available for the science team to discuss, to review and act upon data/imagery after they have been collected and transmitted to the ground). Subjective data included acceptability, simulation quality, capability assessment ratings, and comments. In addition, comments from both the crew and the ST were captured during the post-mission debrief. Here, we focus on the acceptability of the operations concepts studied and the capabilities most enhancing or enabling in the operations concept. The importance and challenges of designing EVA time-lines to account for the length of the task, level of interaction with the ground that is required/desired, and communication latency, are discussed.

Chappell, Steven P.↗

NASA NTRS2016

A Review of the Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer as a Tool for Field Geologic Investigations on Earth and in Planetary Surface Exploration

X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy is a well-established and commonly used technique in obtaining diagnostic compositional data on geological samples. Recently, developments in X-ray tube and detector technologies have resulted in miniaturized, field-portable instruments that enable new applications both in and out of standard laboratory settings. These applications, however, have not been extensively applied to geologic field campaigns. This study investigates the feasibility of using developing handheld XRF (hXRF) technology to enhance terrestrial field geology, with potential applications in planetary surface exploration missions. We demonstrate that the hXRF is quite stable, providing reliable and accurate data continuously over a several year period. Additionally, sample preparation is proved to have a marked effect on the strategy for collecting and assimilating hXRF data. While the hXRF is capable of obtaining data that are comparable to laboratory XRF analysis for several geologically-important elements (such as Si, Ca, Ti, and K), the instrument is unable to detect other elements (such as Mg and Na) reliably. While this limits the use of the hXRF, especially when compared to laboratory XRF techniques, the hXRF is still capable of providing the field user with significantly improved contextual awareness of a field site, and more work is needed to fully evaluate the potential of this instrument in more complex geologic environments.

Young, Kelsey E.↗

NASA NTRS2012

The Use of Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Technology in Unraveling the Eruptive History of the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

While traditional geologic mapping includes the examination of structural relationships between rock units in the field, more advanced technology now enables us to simultaneously collect and combine analytical datasets with field observations. Information about tectonomagmatic processes can be gleaned from these combined data products. Historically, construction of multi-layered field maps that include sample data has been accomplished serially (first map and collect samples, analyze samples, combine data, and finally, readjust maps and conclusions about geologic history based on combined data sets). New instruments that can be used in the field, such as a handheld xray fluorescence (XRF) unit, are now available. Targeted use of such instruments enables geologists to collect preliminary geochemical data while in the field so that they can optimize scientific data return from each field traverse. Our study tests the application of this technology and projects the benefits gained by real-time geochemical data in the field. The integrated data set produces a richer geologic map and facilitates a stronger contextual picture for field geologists when collecting field observations and samples for future laboratory work. Real-time geochemical data on samples also provide valuable insight regarding sampling decisions by the field geologist

Young, Kelsey E.↗

NASA NTRS2011

In-Situ XRF Measurements in Lunar Surface Exploration Using Apollo Samples as a Standard

Samples collected during the Apollo lunar surface missions were sampled and returned to Earth by astronauts with varying degrees of geological experience. The technology used in these EVAs, or extravehicular activities, included nothing more advanced than traditional terrestrial field instruments: rock hammer, scoop, claw tool, and sample bags. 40 years after Apollo, technology is being developed that will allow for a high-resolution geochemical map to be created in the field real-time. Handheld x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technology is one such technology. We use handheld XRF to enable a broad in-situ characterization of a geologic site of interest based on fairly rapid techniques that can be implemented by either an astronaut or a robotic explorer. The handheld XRF instrument we used for this study was the Innov-X Systems Delta XRF spectrometer.

Young, Kelsey E.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Conducting Planetary Field Geology on EVA: Lessons from the 2010 DRATS Geologist Crewmembers

In order to prepare for the next phase of planetary surface exploration, the Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) field program seeks to test the next generation of technology needed to explore other surfaces. The 2010 DRATS 14-day field campaign focused on the simultaneous operation of two habitatable rovers, or Space Exploration Vehicles (SEVs). Each rover was crewed by one astronaut/commander and one geologist, with a change in crews on day seven of the mission. This shift change allowed for eight crew members to test the DRATS technology and operational protocols [1,2]. The insights presented in this abstract represent the crew s thoughts on lessons learned from this field season, as well as potential future testing concepts.

Young, Kelsey E.↗

NASA NTRS2011

The Effect of Different Operations Modes on Science Capabilities During the 2010 Desert-RATS Test: Insights from the Geologist Crewmembers

The 2010 Desert RATS field test utilized two Space Exploration Vehicles (prototype planetary rovers) and four crewmembers (2 per rover) to conduct a geologic traverse across northern Arizona while testing continuous and twice-per-day communications paired with operation modes of separating and exploring individually (Divide & Conquer) and exploring together (Lead & Follow), respectively. This report provides qualitative conclusions from the geologist crewmembers involved in this test as to how these modes of communications and operations affected our ability to conduct field geology. Each mode of communication and operation provided beneficial capabilities that might be further explored for future Human Spaceflight Missions to other solar system objects. We find that more frequent interactions between crews and an Apollo-style Science Team on the Earth best enables scientific progress during human exploration. However, during multiple vehicle missions, this communication with an Earth-based team of scientists, who represent "more minds on the problem", should not come at the exclusion of (or significantly decrease) communication between the crewmembers in different vehicles who have the "eyes on the ground". Inter-crew communications improved when discussions with a backroom were infrequent. Both aspects are critical and cannot be mutually exclusive. Increased vehicle separation distances best enable encounters with multiple geologic units. However, seemingly redundant visits by multiple vehicles to the same feature can be utilized to provide improved process-related observations about the development and modification of the local terrain. We consider the value of data management, transfer, and accessibility to be the most important lesson learned. Crews and backrooms should have access to all data and related interpretations within the mission in as close to real-time conditions as possible. This ensures that while on another planetary surface, crewmembers are as educated as possible with respect to the observations and data they will need to collect at any moment.

Bleacher, Jacob E.↗