Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission objectives”

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 NTRS1976

Precision pointing of the international ultraviolet explorer /IUE/ scientific instrument using a gyroscopic and stellar reference

The Attitude Control System for the IUE spacecraft is described. The basic mission objectives are stated and a sequential discussion of the mission is presented. Desired accuracy for each mission phase is noted and where applicable the onboard control mechanization is shown. Sensors and actuator systems utilized by the control algorithms are described. Finally, onboard software is discussed to a level necessary to understand the prime mission mode operation.

Moore, J. V.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Galileo and Ulysses missions safety analysis and launch readiness status

The Galileo spacecraft, which will release probes to explore the Jupiter system, was launched in October, 1989 as the payload on STS-34, and the Ulysses spacecraft, which will fly by Jupiter en route to a polar orbit of the sun, is presently entering system-test activity in preparation for an October, 1990 launch. This paper reviews the Galileo and Ulysses mission objectives and design approaches and presents details of the missions' safety analysis. The processes used to develop the safety analysis are described and the results of safety tests are presented.

Cork, M. Joseph↗
NASA NTRS1994

Shared mission operations concept

Historically, new JPL flight projects have developed a Mission Operations System (MOS) as unique as their spacecraft, and have utilized a mission-dedicated staff to monitor and control the spacecraft through the MOS. NASA budgetary pressures to reduce mission operations costs have led to the development and reliance on multimission ground system capabilities. The use of these multimission capabilities has not eliminated an ongoing requirement for a nucleus of personnel familiar with a given spacecraft and its mission to perform mission-dedicated operations. The high cost of skilled personnel required to support projects with diverse mission objectives has the potential for significant reduction through shared mission operations among mission-compatible projects. Shared mission operations are feasible if: (1) the missions do not conflict with one another in terms of peak activity periods, (2) a unique MOS is not required, and (3) there is sufficient similarity in the mission profiles so that greatly different skills would not be required to support each mission. This paper will further develop this shared mission operations concept. We will illustrate how a Discovery-class mission would enter a 'partner' relationship with the Voyager Project, and can minimize MOS development and operations costs by early and careful consideration of mission operations requirements.

Spradlin, Gary L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Drilling on the Moon and Mars: Developing the Science Approach for Subsurface Exploration with Human Crews

DOMEX (Drilling on the Moon and Mars in Human Exploration) is using analog missions to develop the approach for using human crews to perform science activities on the Moon and Mars involving exploration and sampling of the subsurface. Subsurface science is an important activity that may be uniquely enabled by human crews. DOMEX provides an opportunity to plan and execute planetary mission science activities without the expense and overhead of a planetary mission. Objectives: The objective of this first in a series of DOMEX missions were to 1) explore the regional area to understand the geologic context and determine stratigraphy and geologic history of various geologic units in the area. 2) Explore for and characterize sites for deploying a deep (10 m depth) drilling system in a subsequent field season. 3) Perform GPR on candidate drill sites. 4) Select sites that represent different geological units deposited in different epochs and collect soil cores using sterile procedures for mineralogical, organic and biological analysis. 5) Operate the MUM in 3 different sites representing different geological units and soil characteristics. 6) Collect rock and soil samples of sites visited and analyze them at the habitat. Results: At mission start the crew performed a regional survey to identify major geologic units that were correlated to recognized stratigraphy and regional geologic maps. Several candidate drill sites were identified. During the rest of the mission, successful GPR surveys were conducted in four locations. Soil cores were collected in 5 locations representing soils from 4 different geologic units, to depths up to 1m. Soil cores from two locations were analyzed with PCR in the laboratory. The remainder were reserved for subsequent analysis. XRD analysis was performed in the habitat and in the field on 39 samples, to assist with sample characterization, conservation, and archiving. MUM was deployed at 3 field locations and 1 test location (outside the habitat) where it operated autonomously for 2-4 hours at each site. Depths achieved ranged from 15 to 70 cm depending on the soil compressive strength and the presence and depth of subsurface indurated layers. Subsurface samples weighing 0.5 to 1 g were collected at the deepest depth encountered at each of the sites using the MUM automated sample collection system, and subsequently analyzed with XRD. Downhole inspection of holes produced by MUM with the Raman spectrometer was acquired on two of the holes and spectral features associated with selenite were identified in specific soil layers. Previously unreported fossilized remains of vertebrate fauna from the Jurassic era were discovered during our mission. Analysis of mineral biomarkers associated with this discovery are underway.

Stoker, C. R.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk.

Evans-Flynn, Erin↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground.

Flynn-Evans, Erin↗
NASA NTRS1980

Prelaunch summary: NOAA-B launch

The NOAA-B satellite will launch from the Western Test Range into Sun-synchronous orbit to replace the TIROSN-satellite as part of the national operational environmental satellite system in support of the Global Atmospheric Research Program and the World Weather Watch. The mission objectives, primary environmental sensors, launch particulars, flight sequence of events, mission support, and project costs for NOAA-A through NOAA-G are discussed. NASA's responsibilities include launch, in-orbit evaluation and spacecraft checkout.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1981

Deep space exploration - The new challenges

Prospects for future planetary exploration missions are examined. The evolution of planetary mission objectives in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. is traced, and planetary mission attempts and results are reviewed. The present situation with regard to planetary and interplanetary spacecraft operating in 1980 and approved deep-space missions for the future is considered, and the good scientific prospects of future Soviet missions are emphasized. Future plans for U.S. missions not yet approved are then discussed, with consideration given to the Venus Orbital Imaging Radar mission, a mission to Halley's comet, a rendezvous with a short-period comet, a Saturn orbiter mission with probes into Saturn and Titan, asteroid missions, gravity-assisted flights to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, a Mercury orbiter/lander, lunar activities and a program of Mars exploration. The demanding requirements in the fields of automation, instrumentation and data gathering techniques, launch vehicle capabilities and spacecraft propulsion for future possible missions and possible solutions are examined. Finally, recommendations for the simultaneous pursuit of both major missions at the scientific and technological frontier and lesser missions designed to investigate specific scientific questions raised by earlier probes are presented.

French, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Analysis of heliographic missions complementary to ISPM

Five concepts were formulated, analyzed, and compared for satisfying heliographic science mission objectives both with and without a concurrent International Solar Polar Mission (ISPM) Spacecraft. Key astrodynamic constraints and performance factors are known from literature for the Lagrange point mission and the sun-synchronous earth orbit mission, but are set forth in this paper for the three solar orbiting missions concepts considered. Any of these five missions should be doable at modest cost since no strong cost drivers were encountered in the analyses. The mission to be flown depends on mission capability to meet science measurement needs more than on strong economic factors. Each mission offers special advantages for particular measurement emphasis. Based on selected qualitative mission discriminators, an overall 'best mission' was selected and described in some detail.

Driver, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA's Orbital Debris Conjuction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Strategy

NASA has successfully used debris avoidance maneuvers to protect our spacecraft for more than 20 . years. This process which started out using parametric data and maneuver boxes has seen considerable evolution and now allows us to continue nominal operations for all but the most threatening objects. This has greatly reduced the interruptions to the critical mission objectives being pursued by NASA s Space Station, Space Shuttle, and robotic satellites.

Gavin, Richard T.↗
NASA NTRS2015

LADEE Preparations for Contingency Operations for the Lunar Orbit Insertion Maneuver

The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft was launched on September 7, 2013 UTC, and completed its mission on April 17, 2014 UTC with a directed impact to the Lunar Surface. Its primary goals were to examine the lunar atmosphere, measure lunar dust, and to demonstrate high rate laser communications. The mission objectives, much of which can be attributed to careful LADEE mission was a resounding success, achieving all planning and preparation. This paper discusses the specific preparations for fault conditions that could occur during a highly-critical phase of the mission, the Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI). highly critical phase of the mission.

failure analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Systems Capability Gaps for Enabling NASA’s Sustainable Lunar Operations

This paper discusses the NASA Ground, Test, and Surface Systems Taxonomy (TX-13) related capability gaps, including details of architecture, technology, engineering, and policy gaps for enabling sustainable lunar surface operations and subsequent Mars missions. Architecture gaps include standardized architectures and interfaces, multi-element systems engineering and integration, design for supportability, and nuclear payload processing and launch approach. Technology gaps, primarily focused on uncrewed surface operations, include automated/autonomous cryogenic loading, transfer, servicing, and storage of commodities; health determination and fault management; automated/autonomous planning and scheduling; automated/autonomous inspection, maintenance and repair; logistics management and reliability; launch and landing site preparation; commodity management; and advanced umbilicals and dust tolerant interfaces. Engineering gaps include high-purity propellant production for ground and surface applications and large-scale xenon servicing capabilities. The policy gap includes nuclear propulsion acceptance testing and qualification approach. Strategically identifying human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle is essential for achieving the mission objectives for a sustainable human lunar presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations costs and reliance on humans to perform tasks, and accommodating ground communication delays.

Surface Systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

Mars Sample Return Mission Concept Status

This paper will provide an overview of current concepts and options for the architecture and design of a Mars Sample Return Mission, including the Sample Retrieval Lander (SRL) (developed by NASA) and the Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) (developed by ESA) . Key mission objectives and the overall campaign will be described, including the mission’s concept of operations and a notional timeline from launch to entry, through surface operations, to delivery of the samples to Mars orbit and return to Earth. The overall SRL lander vehicle concept will be described, including current options being evaluated. Key lander element options that have been studied will be discussed, including the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), Sample Fetch Rover (provided by ESA), Orbiting Sample container (OS), and sample tube transfer robotics systems. For the ERO the vehicle concept will be described including key interfaces with the Capture/Containment and Return System (CCRS). Specific challenges and approaches for addressing those challenges will be discussed, including key technical margins and backward planetary protection. The information provided about possible Mars sample return architectures is for planning and discussion purposes only. NASA has made no official decision to implement Mars sample return.

Muirhead, Brian K↗
NASA NTRS2022

Evidence Report: Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations

During future missions to the Moon and Mars, each crewmember will most likely perform up to 24 hours a week of extravehicular activity (EVA) in support of exploration, science, construction, and maintenance tasks. Achieving mission objectives will require EVA systems and operations concepts that maximize human performance and efficiency while minimizing health and safety risks for crewmembers. Currently, over 450 EVAs have been performed in microgravity using the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU space suit has enabled the successful assembly and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) for over 20 years, as well as deployment of payload experiments, solar arrays, satellite launches and repairs. This EVA work was accomplished at a slower cadence than is expected for Moon and Mars, with ISS crewmembers performing no more than 7 EVAs during a single mission and without any back-to-back EVAs. Despite their success, ISS EVAs have resulted in more injury to EVA crewmembers than may be acceptable for long-duration exploration missions. The Apollo astronauts completed EVA tasks in suits that were designed for their short-duration lunar missions, although suit mobility problems were evident. The more frequent EVAs and more varied EVA tasks that are anticipated during the future longer-duration exploration missions will require EVA suits and systems that are better oriented to human health and performance than those used during the Apollo Program. Many of the problems that were encountered with the Apollo EVA suits (e.g., limited mobility and dexterity, high and aft center of gravity, and other features requiring significant crew compensation) will need to be corrected or mitigated to optimize EVA objectives of exploration missions. It is critical that we understand how EVA system design variables such as suit pressure, weight/mass, center-of-gravity location, joint ranges of motion, and biomedical monitoring, affects the ability of astronauts to perform safe, efficient, and effective EVAs. To achieve this understanding, EVA researchers will need to develop and execute an integrated human testing program across multiple environments. The research will provide objective data that will enable informed design decisions and crewmember standards, thereby ensuring EVA systems that optimize crewmember health, safety, efficiency, and performance. This report describes the risks to crew health, safety, performance, and efficiency caused by EVA operations, and it provides the evidence base to substantiate the importance of the risk.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS1993

Trajectory design for the Deep Space Program Science Experiment (DSPSE) mission

In 1994, the Deep Space Program Science Experiment (DSPSE) spacecraft will become the first spacecraft to perform, in succession, both a lunar orbiting mission and a deep-space asteroid encounter mission. The primary mission objective is to perform a long-duration flight-test of various new-technology lightweight components, such as sensors, in a deep-space environment. The mission has two secondary science objectives: to provide high-resolution imaging of the entire lunar surface for mapping purposes and flyby imaging of the asteroid 1620 Geographos. The DSPSE mission is sponsored by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). As prime contractor, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is building the spacecraft and will conduct mission operations. The Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Division is supporting NRL in the areas of The Deep Space Network (DSN) will provide tracking support. The DSPSE mission will begin with a launch from the Western Test Range in late January 1994. Following a minimum 1.5-day stay in a low-Earth parking orbit, a solid kick motor burn will boost DSPSE into an 18-day, 2.5-revolution phasing orbit transfer trajectory to the Moon. Two burns to insert DSPSE into a lunar polar orbit suitable for the mapping mission will be followed by mapping orbit maintenance and adjustment operations over a period of 2 sidereal months. In May 1994, a lunar orbit departure maneuver, in conjunction with a lunar swingby 26 days later, will propel DSPSE onto a heliocentric transfer that will intercept Geographos on September 1, 1994. This paper presents the characteristics, deterministic delta-Vs, and design details of each trajectory phase of this unique mission, together with the requirements, constraints, and design considerations to which each phase is subject. Numerous trajectory plots and tables of significant trajectory events are included. Following a discussion of the results of a preliminary launch window analysis, a summary of the deterministic impulsive delta-V budget required to establish the baseline mission trajectory design is presented.

Carrington, D.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Precision orbit determination for TOPEX/POSEIDON

The TOPEX/POSEIDON mission objective requires that the radial position of the spacecraft be determined with an accuracy better than 13 cm RMS (root mean square). This stringent requirement is an order of magnitude below the accuracy achieved for any altimeter mission prior to the definition of the TOPEX/POSEIDON mission. To satislfy this objective, the TOPEX Precision Orbit determination (POD) Team was established as a joint effort between the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Texas at Austin, with collaboration from the University of Colorado and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. During the prelaunch development and the post launch verification phases, the POD team improved, calibrated, and validated the precision orbit determination computer software systems. The accomplishments include (1) increased accuracy of the gravity and surface force models and (2) improved peformance of both laser ranging and Doppler tracking systems. The result of these efforts led to orbit accuracies for TOPEX/POSEIDON which are significantly better than the original mission requirement. Tests based on data fits, covariance analysis, and orbit comparisons indicate that the radial component of the TOPEX/POSEIDON spacecraft is determined, relative to the Earth's mass center, with an root mean square (RMS) error in the range of 3 to 4 cm RMS. This orbit accuracy, together with the near continuous dual-frequency altimetry from this mission, provides the means to determine the ocean's dynamic topography with an unprecedented accuracy.

Tapley, B. D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

STS-52 Crew Briefing

Commander James B. Wetherbee introduces the crew of STS-52 Columbia, Pilot Michael A. Baker, and Mission Specialists Charles L. Veach, William M. Shepherd, Tamara E. Jernigan, and Steven G. MacLean, in a preflight conference. Each crew member gives an overview of the mission objectives, experiments, payload (LAGEOS-II), and his/her role in the mission. They then answer questions from the press.

Source record↗