Artemis I Off-Nominal-Trajectory Design and Optimization

Robert E. Harpold; Colin Brown; Brian J. Killeen; Randy A. Eckman; Timothy F. Dawn; Badejo Adebonojo; Jacob Williams

NASA NTRS · 20230010126

Artemis I Off-Nominal-Trajectory Design and Optimization

Robert E. Harpold·Colin Brown·Brian J. Killeen·Randy A. Eckman·Timothy F. Dawn·Badejo Adebonojo·Jacob Williams

Abstract

In order to achieve the Artemis I mission objectives to human-rate the Orion spacecraft even under off-nominal conditions, trajectories were developed to handle contingency scenarios: alternate missions for contingencies before or during the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, recoveries to return Orion to the nominal trajectory after a delayed or partial burn, and abort trajectories to return the spacecraft to Earth after a critical failure. In addition, disposal trajectories were generated for situations where recovery was not an option. Details are given on the trajectory characteristics, solution families, the generation of the trajectories, and operations considerations.

Explore related subjects

Artemis I trajectory optimization abort

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Robert E. Harpold, Colin Brown, Brian J. Killeen, Randy A. Eckman, Timothy F. Dawn, Badejo Adebonojo, Jacob Williams. Artemis I Off-Nominal-Trajectory Design and Optimization. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230010126

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis I Trajectory Design and Optimization

This paper presents the overall trajectory design and optimization process for NASA’s Artemis I mission to send an uncrewed Orion vehicle to a lunar Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO). The on-orbit trajectory begins at the Space Launch System (SLS) core separation and ends at the Orion service module Earth Entry Interface (EI) point. The details of the trajectory optimization process are presented, including design of nominal and extended mission options, launch windows, and abort options. Novel design techniques are also discussed to account for contingencies, such as using auxiliary thrusters to protect against main engine failure and applying trajectory shaping to mitigate or reduce eclipse durations.

Artemis I↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flame Deflector Ablation Analysis based on Artemis 1 Launch Environment

This paper presents the updated ablative analysis methods used to determine Artemis 1 launch load environment on the flame deflector for the design based on Artemis I Assessments. The flame trench under Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center contains a flame deflector to safely divert the exhaust plume from the SLS rocket during launch. During launch of Artemis I the refurbished flame trench and the new flame deflector experienced peak temperatures of over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (over 1,000 degrees Celsius) for several seconds. These extreme conditions caused ablation (material removal) from the steel plates. This paper contains flame deflector heat flux values for design based on Artemis I assessment. Post flight images of the flame deflector are shown along with “Pre vs Post” Flame Deflector scan image to measure the post flight deviations. Using COMSOL, a method to calculate a heat flux value due to measured deviations in the deflector plates caused by ablation is shown.

Artemis I↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Operations of the Artemis I Mission

This paper describes the operational design and execution of the Artemis I trajectory. It was an operationally complex trajectory with powered lunar flybys and insertion into a Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO). A joint team of trajectory analysts at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) were responsible for the design and operation of nominal and off-nominal in-space trajectories. A process was developed to convert optimized reference trajectories into Orion burn plans that could be uplinked to the vehicle. During the mission, the joint flight controller and engineering team continuously evaluated upcoming translational burns using actual vehicle conditions, monitored the trajectory for opportunities to re-optimize the trajectory in order to reduce propellant usage, and prepared for potential off-nominal scenarios. Overall Orion in-space trajectory performance is compared tomission designs to demonstrate the success of the design and operations work-flows.

Artemis I↗