Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LUNAR LANDING MODULE”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Systems engineering studies of lunar base construction

Many ingenious concepts have been proposed for lunar base construction, but few systematic studies exist which relate time-consistent lunar base construction technologies and the choice of lunar base approach with the long-term SEI objectives - i.e., lunar indigenous base construction and Mars Exploration equipment development. To fill this gap, CSC has taken a two-pronged approach. First, the Center undertook basic geotechnical investigations of lunar soil, fabrication of a scale prototype of a lunar construction crane, a multi-robot construction team laboratory experiment, and a preliminary design of lunar base structures. Second, during Jun. and Jul. 1991 two lunar base construction systems engineering studies were accomplished - a 'near term lunar base' study, and a 'far-term lunar base' study. The goals of these studies were to define the major lunar base construction research problems in consistent technology/construction frameworks, and to define design requirements for construction equipment such as a lunar crane and a regolith mover. The 'near-term lunar base' study examined three different construction concepts for a lunar base comprised of pre-fabricated, pre-tested, Space Station Freedom-type modules, which would be covered with regolith shielding. Concept A used a lunar crane for unloading and transportation; concept B, a winch and cart; and concept C, a walker to move the modules from the landing site to the base site and assemble them. To evaluate the merits of each approach, calculations were made of mass efficiency measure, source mass, reliability, far-term base mass, Mars base mass, and base assembly time. The model thus established was also used to define the requirements for crane speed and regolith mover m(sup 3)/sec rates. A major problem addressed is how to 'mine' the regolith and stack it over the habitats as shielding. To identify when the cost of using indigenous lunar materials to construct the base exceeds the cost of development and delivery of the equipment for processing lunar materials, a study of construction of a candidate sintered regolith 'far term lunar base' was undertaken. A technique was devised for casting slabs of sintered (basaltic) regolith and assembling these into a hemispherical (or geodesic) dome. The major problem occurs with the inner liner. At 14.7 psi and 20 percent oxygen internal atmosphere, the entire structure is in tension, even with the regolith load. Also, another study has indicated that at 14.7 psi major resupply of air will be needed because of leakage, and astronauts may have to engage in extensive pre-breathing and post-breathing for extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks, thus detracting from useful mission work time. An alternative is to operate part of the base at, say, 5 psi and 70 percent oxygen, or to equip the astronauts with hard suits at 8.3 psi or greater. All of these choices directly influence base design and construction techniques.

Morgenthaler, George W.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Summary of scientific results

The major scientific results of the Apollo 15 flight are summarized. The objectives of the flight are given as: (1) to carry out extensive geological exploration, comprehensive sampling, and photographic documentation of the Apennine Front at Hadley Delta, Hadley Rille, and the mare plain, (2) to emplace the ALSEP near the landing site, and (3) to perform a series of survey experiments with the scientific instrument module (SIM) equipment from lunar orbit and during transearth coast.

Allen, J. P.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Tech Briefs, October 2011

Topics covered include: Laser Truss Sensor for Segmented Telescope Phasing; Qualifications of Bonding Process of Temperature Sensors to Deep-Space Missions; Optical Sensors for Monitoring Gamma and Neutron Radiation; Compliant Tactile Sensors; Cytometer on a Chip; Measuring Input Thresholds on an Existing Board; Scanning and Defocusing Properties of Microstrip Reflectarray Antennas; Cable Tester Box; Programmable Oscillator; Fault-Tolerant, Radiation-Hard DSP; Sub-Shot Noise Power Source for Microelectronics; Asynchronous Message Service Reference Implementation; Zero-Copy Objects System; Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking MACHETE Model; Contact Graph Routing; Parallel Eclipse Project Checkout; Technique for Configuring an Actively Cooled Thermal Shield in a Flight System; Use of Additives to Improve Performance of Methyl Butyrate-Based Lithium-Ion Electrolytes; Li-Ion Cells Employing Electrolytes with Methyl Propionate and Ethyl Butyrate Co-Solvents; Improved Devices for Collecting Sweat for Chemical Analysis; Tissue Photolithography; Method for Impeding Degradation of Porous Silicon Structures; External Cooling Coupled to Reduced Extremity Pressure Device; A Zero-Gravity Cup for Drinking Beverages in Microgravity; Co-Flow Hollow Cathode Technology; Programmable Aperture with MEMS Microshutter Arrays; Polished Panel Optical Receiver for Simultaneous RF/Optical Telemetry with Large DSN Antennas; Adaptive System Modeling for Spacecraft Simulation; Lidar-Based Navigation Algorithm for Safe Lunar Landing; Tracking Object Existence From an Autonomous Patrol Vehicle; Rad-Hard, Miniaturized, Scalable, High-Voltage Switching Module for Power Applications; and Architecture for a 1-GHz Digital RADAR.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Manual Crew Override of Vehicle Landings Following G-Transitions

BACKGROUND Manual control during exploration spaceflight consists of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. This crew override capability is critical to enable overall mission success during landing contingencies. However, the introduction of manual override capabilities must be implemented to enable crews to mitigate risks introduced by human error. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. While training and landing aids enable successful landing through disorientation, these adaptive changes may increase cognitive demand that needs to be accounted for in the manual control strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition to develop appropriate countermeasures. METHODS The following study seeks to inform the risk associated with altered sensorimotor and vestibular function impacting critical mission tasks. We aim to characterize the effects of short and long-duration weightlessness on manual control following G-transitions using simulated lunar landing on a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) motion base, a fixed base simulation, and a supervisory control tablet task. The primary goal is to understand the impact of spaceflight on crew ability to perform manual crew override and supervisory control. This aim will be assessed by comparing pre- versus postflight simulation performance in crewmembers assigned to either short duration (< 30 day) or long duration (~6- month) missions to the International Space Station (ISS). We hypothesize there will be postflight increases in the percent time that pilots are outside of the acceptable range for recommended vehicle state parameters and the reaction time for secondary cognitive tasks. Ground-based control subjects, who are demographically matched to the crew considering age (± 5 years) and gender, will undergo the same testing schedule as the crew to examine the effects of flight phase independent of microgravity exposure. The second aim is to examine how adaptive changes in vestibular and cognitive function relate to changes in manual crew override proficiency. Crew performance for a sensorimotor perceptual test battery will evaluate motion perception tracking, roll nulling, and/or vection sensitivity using the 6DOF motion base. We hypothesize that a higher severity of vestibular alterations will be associated with increased percent time outside of guidance limits. Motion sickness severity and sleepiness will also be evaluated. To determine the impact of “just-in-time” training, the third aim seeks to compare performance during on-board lunar landing tasks conducted late in-flight to early postflight. We hypothesize that proficiency on the “just-in-time” laptop trainer late in mission will be positively correlated with early postflight proficiency on the same task. The final aim will establish assessments of performance, training protocols, and the learning progression in a ground-control cohort of first-time users. RESULTS The assessment of the learning progression associated with the piloting task on the motion base system with thirty ground subjects will be reported. Learning curves will be established across four distinct sessions and within session considering trial difficulty. The difficulty of the landing task can be modulated with the landing divert distance and cross or downrange difficulty. Results may include changes in performance across multiple trials of a multi-attribute lunar tablet supervisory control task. Preliminary investigations of eighteen subjects who completed vestibular threshold and motion perception tasks offer expected performance ranges for upcoming preflight crew evaluations. The results yielded an average roll threshold of 0.46 ± 0.30 deg/s and an average roll nulling root mean square error performance of 2.52 ± 0.52 deg/s. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew monitoring capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew performance will help better characterize the manual control risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. Ground testing will evaluate learning progression, refine training protocols, and serve as a control cohort for comparisons to crew performance. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors acknowledge contributions from Draper, the Dynamic Skills Trainer (DST) Lab, and the Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division toward the development of the lunar landing simulation platforms. This project is funded by the Human Health Countermeasures Element.

Hannah M. Weiss↗
NASA NTRS1972

Apollo experience report: The docking system

The decision to accomplish the lunar landing mission by use of the lunar orbit rendezvous technique required that a docking system be developed to allow: (1) spacecraft modules to be structurally joined, (2) intravehicular transfer of the crew and equipment, and (3) separation of the modules. The basic design criteria of the docking system, the evolution process, and the various docking concepts considered for the Apollo program are presented. Docking systems that were considered for the Apollo program included both impact and nonimpact systems; a probe and drogue impact system was selected. Physical and functional descriptions of the probe and drogue, the crew transfer tunnel, and docking ring latches are presented for both the early configuration and the present configuration as influenced by the development and qualification test programs. In addition, preflight checkout activity and mission performance of the system are discussed.

Langley, R. D.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Concepts for manned lunar habitats

The design philosophy that will guide the design of early lunar habitats will be based on a compromise between the desired capabilities of the base and the economics of its development and implantation. Preferred design will be simple, make use of existing technologies, require the least amount of lunar surface preparation, and minimize crew activity. Three concepts for an initial habitat supporting a crew of four for 28 to 30 days are proposed. Two of these are based on using Space Station Freedom structural elements modified for use in a lunar-gravity environment. A third concept is proposed that is based on an earlier technology based on expandable modules. The expandable modules offer significant advantages in launch mass and packaged volume reductions. It appears feasible to design a transport spacecraft lander that, once landed, can serve as a habitat and a stand-off for supporting a regolith environmental shield. A permanent lunar base habitat supporting a crew of twelve for an indefinite period can be evolved by using multiple initial habitats. There appears to be no compelling need for an entirely different structure of larger volume and increased complexity of implantation.

Hypes, W. D.↗
NASA NTRS1962

Design comparison of lunar return configurations

Parabolic manned re-entry design comparisons are made between two classes of slender and blunt configurations capable of conventional horizontal and vertical earth landings. Aerodynamic modulation using flaps and control augmentation requirements are discussed in terms of their effect upon re-entry trajectories and landing footprints. Within the environment defined by the re-entry trajectories, the convective and radiative modes of heat transfer are compared, their differences discussed, and the problems associated with the configurations for planetary return missions indicated. Thermal protection systems are discussed and the factors influencing the selection of a given system for the re-entry environment are indicated. Comparison between reflective and absorptive systems are made and the merits of each for a given flight time indicated. A thermo-structural analysis is presented which shows the trade-oft between structural operating temperature and heat protection system thickness requirements. Total heat shield and structural weights are compared for the landing footprints presented and their variation with range shown. Finally, the areas of uncertainty in the aero-thermo structural design analysis are indicated for each class of configuration studied, and the weight differences between conventional horizontal landing and vertical descent configurations are given.

Parabolic flight↗
NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗
NASA NTRS1991

Apollo 13: Houston, We've Got a Problem

This video contains historical footage of the flight of Apollo-13, the fifth Lunar Mission and the third spacecraft that was to land on the Moon. Apollo-13's launch date was April 11, 1970. On the 13th of April, after docking with the Lunar Module, the astronauts, Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swiggert, discovered that their oxygen tanks had ruptured and ended up entering and returning to Earth in the Lunar Module instead of the Command Module. There is footage of inside module and Mission Control shots, personal commentary by the astronauts concerning the problems as they developed, national news footage and commentary, and a post-flight Presidential Address by President Richard Nixon. Film footage of the approach to the Moon and departing from Earth, and air-to-ground communication with Mission Control is included.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Entry Vehicle Control System Design for the Mars Smart Lander

The NASA Langley Research Center, in cooperation with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, participated in a preliminary design study of the Entry, Descent and Landing phase for the Mars Smart Lander Project. This concept utilizes advances in Guidance, Navigation and Control technology to significantly reduce uncertainty in the vehicle landed location on the Mars surface. A candidate entry vehicle controller based on the Reaction Control System controller for the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module digital autopilot is proposed for use in the entry vehicle attitude control. A slight modification to the phase plane controller is used to reduce jet-firing chattering while maintaining good control response for the Martian entry probe application. The controller performance is demonstrated in a six-degree-of-freedom simulation with representative aerodynamics.

Calhoun, Philip C.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Numerical Study of Lander Engine Plume Impingement on the Surface of Europa

Plume exhaust from lander engines would be of concern when landing on the surface of Europa since it could have detrimental effects on both the landing surface and powered descent vehicle. The plume could also entrain particles and redirect them up toward the landing vehicle, as well as erode and contaminate the surface where science would be conducted. In this work, a numerical methodology is developed and validated to conduct a first-order assessment of individual engine plumes of a potential Europa Lander vehicle. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to solve the flow field inside and immediately downstream of the nozzle, while the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method is applied further downstream where the flow becomes rarefied. An interface between the two domains is defined where macroscopic flow data is passed from the CFD domain to the DSMC domain, establishing a one-way coupling. Plume pressure and velocity fields, as well as ground heating, pressure and density flux profiles, are obtained at altitudes from 25 m down to 10 m, spanning the final stages of landing. The codes and methodologies used in this study are successfully validated with simulations conducted by Morris et al. of the Apollo Lunar Module Descent Engine (LMDE) exhaust plume impinging onto the lunar surface.

Lam, Rebekah↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Flexible Lunar Architecture for Exploration (FLARE): Designed for the Artemis-3 Moon 2024 Mission and Beyond

The Flexible Lunar Architecture for Exploration (FLARE) is a concept to deliver four crew to the lunar surface for 7 to 14 days and then return them safely to Earth by 2024. This meets NASA’s internal 2024 lunar landing deadline directed by President Trump (Trump, 2017) and the “5-year” goal set forth by Vice President Pence (Pence, 2019). FLARE is an alternative to NASA’s Human Landing System reference architecture from the Design Analysis Cycle (DAC) #2 (NASA, 2019b). The minimum FLARE concept uses one Space Launch System launch, one Orion, one European Service Module (ESM), and one human lander to deliver four crew to the Moon for a minimum surface duration of 7 days and return them to Earth. FLARE adds a new capability, called the SpaceTug, based upon the mature and successful United Launch Alliance “Common” Centaur Upper Stage vehicle, with modifications. In FLARE, the SpaceTug provides propulsion needed to return the Orion+ESM from the Moon to Earth. The SpaceTug also provides propulsion to deliver the human lander Descent Element (DE) and Ascent Element (AE) separately to lunar orbit. The Orion+ESM then completes a rendezvous with the mated DE+AE in lunar orbit. FLARE also offers optional phases to the Moon 2024 mission. The SpaceTug can also deliver components of the planned Gateway - including the Power and Propulsion Element and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost - to lunar orbit; however, the planned FLARE destination is a Low Lunar Frozen Polar Orbit unlike the NASA DAC2 plan for a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit. FLARE also provides an option to deliver precursor equipment - including a habitation module, crew mobility devices and an In-Situ Resource Utilization demonstration - to the lunar surface for enhanced crew exploration and science with the extended 14-day surface mission.

Commercial Launch Vehicles (CLV)↗
NASA NTRS1972

Active seismic experiment

The Apollo 16 active seismic experiment (ASE) was designed to generate and monitor seismic waves for the study of the lunar near-surface structure. Several seismic energy sources are used: an astronaut-activated thumper device, a mortar package that contains rocket-launched grenades, and the impulse produced by the lunar module ascent. Analysis of some seismic signals recorded by the ASE has provided data concerning the near-surface structure at the Descartes landing site. Two compressional seismic velocities have so far been recognized in the seismic data. The deployment of the ASE is described, and the significant results obtained are discussed.

Kovach, R. L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Concept of Operations for a Prospective "Proving Ground" in the Lunar Vicinity

NASA is studying conceptual architectures for a "Proving Ground" near the Moon or in high lunar orbit to conduct human space exploration missions that bridge the gap between today's operations with the International Space Station (ISS) and future human exploration of Mars beginning in the 2030s. This paper describes the framework of a concept of operations ("Conops") for candidate activities in the Proving Ground. The Conops discusses broad goals that the Proving Ground might address, such as participation from commercial entities, support for human landings on the Moon, use of mature technologies, and growth of capability through a steady cadence of increasingly ambitious piloted missions. Additional Proving Ground objectives are outlined in a companion paper. Key elements in the Conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include a new space suit, commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a core module with multiple docking ports, a habitation block, and robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. A module providing advanced regenerative life support functions could launch to the ISS, and later move to the Proving Ground. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The Conops describes notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission might be the delivery of a approximately 10-t Transit Habitat element, comanifested with Orion on a Block 1B SLS launcher, to the Proving Ground. In another mission, the architecture might participate in direct human exploration of an asteroidal boulder brought to high lunar orbit by the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The Proving Ground stack could serve as a staging point and tele-operation center for robotic and piloted Moon landings. With the addition of a SEP stage, the architecture could support months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth's sphere of influence, possibly culminating in a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. In a conceptual mission particularly stressing to system design, Proving Ground elements could transit to Mars orbit. Other possible design-driving operations include relocation of the stack with no crew on board, the unpiloted journey of the advanced life support module from ISS to the lunar vicinity, excursions to other destinations in near-Earth space, and additional support for Mars exploration in conjunction with the Evolvable Mars Campaign. The Proving Ground Conops concludes with a discussion of aborts and contingency operations

Love, Stanley G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Radiation and Nuclear Technology in Planetary Cave Environments

Many technological and environmental challenges must be resolved to enable successful lunar habitation and exploration, and to maximize scientific return. This presentation is intended as a preliminary discussion on three such areas of interest with the intent to identify likely areas of mutual benefit for collaboration and data sharing between the space nuclear and radiological disciplines with the planetary cave community. First is the previously identified and studied possible application of lunar lava tubes or pits to reduce the solar and cosmic radiation environment burden on crew health and hardware reliability. This is an area of continued interest, and should be kept in the forefront of discussion during the selection of sites for potential exploration or long-term habitation. In theory, the prospect of using existing morphology presents an enticing opportunity to reduce the requirements on landed mass or construction while also reducing dose or fluence of harmful natural radiation. However, such discussions should also include the practical implications of relocating habitation hardware and personnel from a landing site to a subsurface location. Inherent risks associated with landing in proximity to the relevant terrain must also be considered and weighed against those imposed by the natural radiation environment. Second is a discussion on the means by which a long-term habitation module or base of operations may be powered throughout the lunar day-night cycle. Fission surface power presents an opportunity to establish round-the-clock power in any lunar surface environment, including permanently shadowed regions where solar panels cannot operate, or in any other non-polar region where solar radiation is available for no more than two weeks per four-week cycle. Among the drawbacks of fission surface power is the need to either land and co-locate a heavy shield to minimize radiological consequences to personnel or equipment, land and operate construction equipment capable of restructuring the in-situ regolith to provide appropriate shielding, or to make use of existing topology features (e.g. craters or pits) to serve as pre-formed radiation barriers. A realistic assessment of the practicality of this third option should involve the selection of candidate features from existing surveys, and assess the effectiveness of the approach using modern radiation transport methodologies. Consideration must be made for the needs to reject waste heat in the thermal power conversion process, which typically requires the use of large area radiators. Energy must be exchanged from the reactor and power conversion system to such radiators, and the impacts on thermal efficiency and secondary scatter of nuclear radiation must be considered. Further consideration should be made for the implications of placement of a power source such that it does not sacrifice valuable scientific opportunity. Placement of a reactor is likely to thereafter prevent personnel access within that feature. Third is a discussion on the use of portable radioisotope power systems (RPS) within confined spaces, both with respect to the dose effects of emitted nuclear radiation and also performance associated with emitted thermal radiation. Radioisotope power systems provide a unique capability to power objects with no reliance upon solar radiance. However, their useable power production relies upon the flow of heat from ‘hot side’ (decaying radioisotope) to ‘cold side’ (radiators emitting heat to space). In the case of a confined volume in vacuum such as a lunar lava tube, that radiated energy will absorb into the wall, which is already above the ‘cold background’ temperature of dark space, and then gradually rises in temperature. That temperature rise, and its implications on availability of useable electrical power, will depend upon factors such as enclosure volume, thermal emissivity/absorptivity, and thermal conductivity through the depth of absorbing media. The advantages of nuclear technology may prove to enable unique scientific exploration opportunities, both above the lunar surface and below. In turn, the unique advantages of lunar lava tubes or pits may present unique opportunities to enhance the application of these technologies and to mitigate the effects of radiation from both natural and technological sources. A discussion on these pairings may prove to be valuable to all, in our endeavor to explore our neighboring worlds.

Radiation↗
NASA NTRS2009

Modeling of Lunar Dust Contamination Due to Plume Impingement

During the Apollo missions it became apparent that lunar dust was a significant hazard. Problems included: surface obscuration during landing sequence; abrasion damage to gouge faces and helmet visors; mechanism clogging; development of space suit pressurization leaks; loss of radiator heat rejection capabilities to the point where vulnerable equipment exceeded maximum survival temperature ratings; temporary vision and respiratory problems within the Apollo Lunar Module (LM). NASA Constellation Program features many system-level components, including the Altair Lunar Lander. Altair to endure longer periods at lunar surface conditions: Apollo LM, about three days; Altair, over seven months. Program managers interested in plume-generated dust transport onto thermal control surface radiators of the first Altair created by its own landing operations.

Woronowicz, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2019

Numerical study of lander engine plume impingement on the surface off Europa

Plume exhaust from lander engines would be of concern when landing on the surface of Europa since it could have detrimental effects on both the landing surface and powered descent vehicle. The plume could also entrain particles and redirect them up toward the landing vehicle, as well as erode and contaminate the surface where science would be conducted. In this work, a numerical methodology is developed and validated to conduct a first-order assessment of individual engine plumes of a potential Europa Lander vehicle. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to solve the flow field inside and immediately downstream of the nozzle, while the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method is applied further downstream where the flow becomes rarefied. An interface between the two domains is defined where macroscopic flow data is passed from the CFD domain to the DSMC domain, establishing a one-way coupling. Plume pressure and velocity fields, as well as ground heating, pressure and density flux profiles, are obtained at altitudes from 25 m down to 10 m, spanning the final stages of landing. The codes and methodologies used in this study are successfully validated with simulations conducted by Morris et al. [1-3] of the Apollo Lunar Module Descent Engine (LMDE) exhaust plume impinging onto the lunar surface.

Hoey, William↗