Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Lunar Lander Simulations”

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.

189 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Launch Order, Launch Separation, and Loiter in the Constellation 1 1/2-Launch Solution

The NASA Constellation Program (CxP) is developing a two-element Earth-to-Orbit launch system to enable human exploration of the Moon. The first element, Ares I, is a human-rated system that consists of a first stage based on the Space Shuttle Program's solid rocket booster (SRB) and an upper stage that consists of a four-crew Orion capsule, a service module, and a Launch Escape System. The second element, Ares V, is a Saturn V-plus category launch system that consists of the core stage with a cluster of six RS-68B engines and augmented with two 5.5-segment SRBs, a Saturn-derived J-2X engine powering an Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and the lunar-lander vehicle payload, Altair. Initial plans called for the Ares V to be launched first, followed the next day by the Ares I. After the EDS performs the final portion of ascent and subsequent orbit circularization, the Orion spacecraft then performs a rendezvous and docks with the EDS and its Altair payload. Following checkout, the integrated stack loiters in low Earth orbit (LEO) until the appropriate Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) window opportunity opens, at which time the EDS propels the integrated Orion Altair to the Moon. Successful completion of this 1 1/2-launch solution carries risks related to both the orbital lifetime of the assets and the probability of achieving the launch of the second vehicle within the orbital lifetime of the first. These risks, which are significant in terms of overall system design choices and probability of mission success, dictated a thorough reevaluation of the launch strategy, including the order of vehicle launch and the planned time period between launches. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to select a launch strategy that would result in the greatest possible expected system performance, while accounting for launch risks and the cost of increased orbital lifetime. Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the launch strategies was created to determine the probability of a second launch not occurring in a timely fashion (i.e., before the assets waiting in LEO expire). An overview of the launch strategy evaluation process is presented, along with results of specific cases that were analyzed. A high-level comparison of options is then presented, along with the conclusion derived from the analysis.

Stromgren, Chel↗
NASA NTRS2010

Lunar Surface Operations with Dual Rovers

Lunar Electric Rovers (LER) are currently being developed that are substantially more capable than the Apollo vehicle (LRN ,"). Unlike the LRV, the new LERs provide a pressurized cabin that serves as short-sleeve environment for the crew of two, including sleeping accommodations and other provisions that allow for long tern stays, possibly up to 60 days, on the hear surface, without the need to replenish consumables from some outside source, such as a lander or outpost. As a consequence, significantly larger regions may be explored in the future and traverse distances may be measured in a few hundred kilometers (1, 2). However, crew safety remains an overriding concern, and methods other than "walk back", the major operational constraint of all Apollo traverses, must be implemented to assure -at any time- the safe return of the crew to the lander or outpost. This then causes current Constellation plans to envision long-tern traverses to be conducted with 2 LERs exclusively, each carrying a crew of two: in case one rover fails, the other will rescue the stranded crew and return all 4 astronauts in a single LER to base camp. Recent Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) analog field tests simulated a continuous 14 day traverse (3), covering some 135 km, and included a rescue operation that transferred the crew and diverse consumables from one LER to another these successful tests add substantial realism to the development of long-term, dual rover operations. The simultaneous utilization of 2 LERs is of course totally unlike Apollo and raises interesting issues regarding science productivity and mission operations, the thrust of this note.

Horz, Friedrich↗
NASA NTRS2015

Differential Draining of Parallel-Fed Propellant Tanks in Morpheus and Apollo Flight

Parallel-fed propellant tanks are an advantageous configuration for many spacecraft. Parallel-fed tanks allow the center of gravity (cg) to be maintained over the engine(s), as opposed to serial-fed propellant tanks which result in a cg shift as propellants are drained from tank one tank first opposite another. Parallel-fed tanks also allow for tank isolation if that is needed. Parallel tanks and feed systems have been used in several past vehicles including the Apollo Lunar Module. The design of the feedsystem connecting the parallel tank is critical to maintain balance in the propellant tanks. The design must account for and minimize the effect of manufacturing variations that could cause delta-p or mass flowrate differences, which would lead to propellant imbalance. Other sources of differential draining will be discussed. Fortunately, physics provides some self-correcting behaviors that tend to equalize any initial imbalance. The question concerning whether or not active control of propellant in each tank is required or can be avoided or not is also important to answer. In order to provide data on parallel-fed tanks and differential draining in flight for cryogenic propellants (as well as any other fluid), a vertical test bed (flying lander) for terrestrial use was employed. The Morpheus vertical test bed is a parallel-fed propellant tank system that uses passive design to keep the propellant tanks balanced. The system is operated in blow down. The Morpheus vehicle was instrumented with a capacitance level sensor in each propellant tank in order to measure the draining of propellants in over 34 tethered and 12 free flights. Morpheus did experience an approximately 20 lb/m imbalance in one pair of tanks. The cause of this imbalance will be discussed. This paper discusses the analysis, design, flight simulation vehicle dynamic modeling, and flight test of the Morpheus parallel-fed propellant. The Apollo LEM data is also examined in this summary report of the flight data.

Hurlbert, Eric↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancements in Lunar Dust Mitigation and Leveraging the Contamination Control Community

Lunar Dust Contamination: As we get closer to putting landers, rovers, payloads, and astronauts on the Moon, dust mitigation is becoming more critical than ever. To address the many challenges of dust mitigation on the surface, engineers and scientists are looking at various technologies that may have relevance for the contamination control community. This includes active, passive, architectural, and operational solutions. There have been advances in coatings for dust mitigation at NASA and through commercial partnerships (see Wiesner, Wohl, et al). There have been advancements to previous solutions as well as novel solutions to address dust mitigation on the surface and on-orbit. There have been several efforts to better understand the effectiveness of various terrestrial and dust mitigation solutions with much of this data published in recent years. In the area of dust mitigation, dust contamination or infiltration refers to the impingement or contact of planetary dust with items not normally dusty and whose operation may therefore be compromised. Recent Advancements in Dust Mitigation: Dust mitigation strategies are becoming more common for hardware heading to the Moon, with most major programs implementing lunar dust contamination requirements for human health and equipment. In the last couple of years, NASA has created more guidance to assist hardware developers with dust mitigation. This includes NASA-STD-1008 (Classifications and Requirements for Testing Systems and Hardware to be Exposed to Dust in Planetary) and NASA TP 20220018746 (Lunar Dust Mitigation Guide and Reference). Several projects are testing hardware in relevant dusty environments to understand their tolerance to lunar dust. There has been a significant increase in the amount of testing with lunar simulants, with the NASA Simulant Advisory Committee serving a resource for NASA and our partners. There are new solutions for detecting and monitoring the dust internally and externally. Learning from the contamination control community: In addition to sharing potentially relevant solutions at the workshop, the dust mitigation community is also interested in learning from the contamination control community on ways to address lunar dust. For instance, a major aspect of managing the dust is monitoring and detection. This is critical for understanding when maintenance is needed and to inform future missions. Another challenge of working with lunar dust is quantifying and characterizing the smallest of particles. There are also challenges in modeling lunar dust and its behavior. The dust mitigation community can also leverage lessons learned from the planetary protection community.

dust mitagation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar BioSensor: An Autonomous Instrument to Study the Effects of the Lunar Environment on Biological Organisms

One of the major challenges to long-duration space travel and habitation in deep space is an in-depth understanding of the biological effects of space radiation, often convoluted by the impact of reduced gravity. Nonetheless, due to the near impossibility of simulating prolonged exposure to these combined effects in terrestrial facilities, actual missions are needed to characterize the radiobiological hazards of this environment. NASA Ames has been the leader in developing autonomous bio nanosatellites to address strategic knowledge gaps about the effects of space travel on biological organisms, including GeneSat, PharmaSat, EcAMSat, and BioSentinel. BioSentinel will be the first interplanetary bio nanosatellite or CubeSat to study the biological response to space radiation outside Low Earth Orbit (LEO). BioSentinel is an autonomous platform able to support biology and to investigate the effects of space radiation on a model organism in interplanetary deep space. It will fly onboard NASA’s Artemis-1, from which it will be deployed on a lunar fly-by trajectory and into a heliocentric orbit. The BioSentinel nanosatellite, a 6U deep space CubeSat (1U = 10-cm cube), will measure the DNA damage and response to ambient space radiation in a model biological organism, the budding yeast S. cerevisiae, which will be compared to information provided by an onboard physical radiation sensor and to data obtained in LEO (on the ISS) and on Earth. Even though the primary objective of the mission is to develop an autonomous spacecraft capable of conducting biological experiments in deep space, the 4U BioSensor science payload contained within the 6U free-flyer is an adaptable instrument platform that can perform biological measurements with different microorganisms and in multiple space environments, including the ISS, lunar gateway, and on the surface of the Moon. The proposed 4U instrument will leverage the payload design of the 6U free-flyer, utilizing the lunar lander or vehicle for power and data relay. Thus, nanosatellites like BioSentinel (and Lunar BioSensor) can be used to study the effects of both reduced gravity and space radiation and can house different bio organisms to answer specific science questions. In addition to their flexibility, nanosatellites also provide a low-cost alternative to more complex and larger missions, and require minimal crew support, if any.

space biosensors↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology (SEATEST) 6 Detailed Final Report

After more than 50 years since the last crewed lunar landing, plans for more missions to the moon are in development. For these missions, efficient and sustainable logistics will be critical. Additionally, innovative methods of cargo transfer to and from a lunar outpost should be considered for successfully establishing a permanent presence on the moon. SEATEST (Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology) is an immersive mission-analogous operational atmosphere where buoyancy effects and supplemental weights can simulate partial gravity conditions similar to those astronauts will experience on the moon. SEATEST 6 took place at the University of Southern California (USC) Wrigley Marine Science Center on Santa Catalina Island from July 18-30, 2023. The analog was used to collect preliminary logistics data on two different offloading conceptual methods (a davit and a zipline) during a simulated lunar mission. Pre-test analysis indicated for a crew of two on a 14-day mission, approximately three Medium Pressurized Logistics Containers (MPLC) sized logistics containers (or a total of 37.5 single Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE)) would be needed to support a mission. A Computer-Aided Design (CAD) analysis was employed on the SEATEST airlock mockup to determine how many logistic containers would fit with two suited crewmembers, don/doff stands, and hatch operations. It was determined that for SEATEST, a total of 15 1.0 Small Pressurized Logistics Containers (SPLCs) and 8 2.0 SPLCs would adequately fit into the approximate 9.5 cubic meter airlock volume. This does not fully represent a complete 14-day logistic supply; however, it does provide a preliminary estimate to initiate design conversations between logistics teams and crew at this early stage of development. Data were collected in eight logistics transfer scenarios over two days with four scenarios per day. Five test subject crew participated in scenarios as pairs. Scenarios included two sizes of logistics containers – 1.0 SPLC (equivalent to a single Cargo Transfer Bag (CTB) and 2.0 SPLC (equivalent to two CTBs). Planed evaluations included the use of a logistics port compared to transfer through an Airlock hatch, offloading methods based on either a davit or a zipline system, choreography of cargo in the airlock to permit ingress and suit doffing, and dust removal protocols for an understanding of the overall impact to transfer ops. Data collected included objective data (task times for conducting overall tasks and subtasks, full audio/video of test activities, and inadvertent “dings” on hardware) and subjective data (crew consensus of: task acceptability and capability assessment ratings related to best practices, considerations, and constraints for EVA-driven logistics transfer ConOps, sim quality of the test environment, and more general debrief comments). The two logistic offloading transfer concepts (davit, zipline) presented both advantages and limitations. The davit’s flexibility in allowing the crew to pick up the containers without physical interaction was well regarded by the crew. Some limitations of select davit hardware components were noted, but the overall concept was acceptable. The zipline system proved to be the most efficient way of moving logistics from the lander to the airlock and eliminated the need for dust operations. However, extended and repetitive lifting of containers to the line could be fatiguing. In conclusion, logistics transfer could hypothetically be achieved without an offloading method; however, the time requirement for such operations would be prohibitive. Results of crew subjective feedback proposed a combined or hybrid davit/zipline method to increase efficiency.

Logistics↗
NASA NTRS2004

Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV: Missions and Instruments: Hopes and Hope Fulfilled

The titles in this section include: 1) Mars Global Surveyor Mars Orbiter Camera in the Extended Mission: The MOC Toolkit; 2) Mars Odyssey THEMIS-VIS Calibration; 3) Early Science Operations and Results from the ESA Mars Express Mission: Focus on Imaging and Spectral Mapping; 4) The Mars Express/NASA Project at JPL; 5) Beagle 2: Mission to Mars - Current Status; 6) The Beagle 2 Microscope; 7) Mars Environmental Chamber for Dynamic Dust Deposition and Statics Analysis; 8) Locating Targets for CRISM Based on Surface Morphology and Interpretation of THEMIS Data; 9) The Phoenix Mission to Mars; 10) First Studies of Possible Landing Sites for the Phoenix Mars Scout Mission Using the BMST; 11) The 2009 Mars Telecommunications Orbiter; 12) The Aurora Exploration Program - The ExoMars Mission; 13) Electron-induced Luminescence and X-Ray Spectrometer (ELXS) System Development; 14) Remote-Raman and Micro-Raman Studies of Solid CO2, CH4, Gas Hydrates and Ice; 15) The Compact Microimaging Spectrometer (CMIS): A New Tool for In-Situ Planetary Science; 16) Preliminary Results of a New Type of Surface Property Measurement Ideal for a Future Mars Rover Mission; 17) Electrodynamic Dust Shield for Solar Panels on Mars; 18) Sensor Web for Spatio-Temporal Monitoring of a Hydrological Environment; 19) Field Testing of an In-Situ Neutron Spectrometer for Planetary Exploration: First Results; 20) A Miniature Solid-State Spectrometer for Space Applications - Field Tests; 21) Application of Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) to Mars Polar Exploration: LIBS Analysis of Water Ice and Water Ice/Soil Mixtures; 22) LIBS Analysis of Geological Samples at Low Pressures: Application to Mars, the Moon, and Asteroids; 23) In-Situ 1-D and 2-D Mapping of Soil Core and Rock Samples Using the LIBS Long Spark; 24) Rocks Analysis at Stand Off Distance by LIBS in Martian Conditions; 25) Evaluation of a Compact Spectrograph/Detection System for a LIBS Instrument for In-Situ and Stand-Off Detection; 26) Analysis of Organic Compounds in Mars Analog Samples; 27) Report of the Organic Contamination Science Steering Group; 28) The Water-Wheel IR (WIR) - A Contact Survey Experiment for Water and Carbonates on Mars; 29) Mid-IR Fiber Optic Probe for In Situ Water Detection and Characterization; 30) Effects of Subsurface Sampling & Processing on Martian Simulant Containing Varying Quantities of Water; 31) The Subsurface Ice Probe (SIPR): A Low-Power Thermal Probe for the Martian Polar Layered Deposits; 32) Deploying Ground Penetrating Radar in Planetary Analog Sites to Evaluate Potential Instrument Capabilities on Future Mars Missions; 33) Evaluation of Rock Powdering Methods to Obtain Fine-grained Samples for CHEMIN, a Combined XRD/XRF Instrument; 34) Novel Sample-handling Approach for XRD Analysis with Minimal Sample Preparation; 35) A New Celestial Navigation Method for Mars Landers; 36) Mars Mineral Spectroscopy Web Site: A Resource for Remote Planetary Spectroscopy.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗