Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Apollo program”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1974

In-situ measurements of lunar heat flow

During the Apollo program two successful heat flow measurements were made in situ on the lunar surface. At the Apollo 15 site a value of 0.0000031 watts/sqcm was measured and at the Apollo 17 site a value of 0.0000022 watts/sqcm was determined. Both measurements have uncertainty limits of + or - 20% and have been corrected for perturbing topographic effects. The apparent difference between the observations may correlate with observed variations in the surface abundance of thorium. Comparison with earlier determinations of heat flow, using the microwave emission spectrum from the moon, gives support to the high gradients and heat flows observed in situ.

Langseth, M. G.↗
NASA NTRS1977

In-situ measurements of lunar heat flow

During the Apollo program two successful heat flow measurements were made in situ on the lunar surface. At the Apollo 15 site a value of .0000031 W/sq cm was measured, and at the Apollo 17 site a value of .0000022 W/sq cm was determined. Both measurements have uncertainty limits of + or - 20 percent and have been corrected for perturbing topographic effects. The apparent difference between the observations may correlate with observed variations in the surface abundance of thorium. Comparison with earlier determinations of heat flow, using the microwave emission spectrum from the moon, gives support to the high gradients and heat flows observed in situ.

Langseth, M. B.↗
NASA NTRS1977

The Apollo VHF ranging system

As the Apollo program proceeded, redundancy became a requirement for all crew safety functions. One critical period of the Apollo missions was the rendezvous of the Command Module and the Lunar Module. The rendezvous radar provided the critical range, range rate, and angle measurements necessary to complete the rendezvous. Use of a redundant radar for backup was out of the question because of its 80-lb weight. It was, however, found that the voice radios could be adapted to perform the ranging function. Slight modifications of the VHF voice radios and the addition of a ranging interrogator and transponder at a weight of less than 10 lbs total would provide an accuracy of 100-ft rms at several hundred miles. The Apollo VHF ranging system demonstrated that it is feasible to achieve highly accurate range measurements with conventional voice radios.

Nossen, E. J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Space Launch System Progress Toward the Launch Pad

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) took a substantial step toward the launch site in2020 with the move of the Artemis I core stage from the manufacturing site to the test stand as the program plans for a 2021 launch. (Fig. 1) SLS is NASA’s evolvable super-heavy-lift launch vehicle to support deep space exploration. It is based on evolutionary improvement to existing proven propulsion systems. Its twin solid rocket boosters employ a five-segment motor based on the four-segment space shuttle motor. Its four RS-25 main engines will operate at thrust levels higher than those in the space shuttle program. The core stage is anew design that will support propellant tanks for the engines and serve as the attach point for the boosters. Modern streamlined manufacturing processes and materials have been incorporated into the initial configuration with planned onramps for improved performance and/or affordability in subsequent versions. The primary role of SLS is to anchor the transportation for NASA’s Artemis Program to return humans to the Moon and build on the exploration that began during the Apollo Program. This paper will discuss progress to date for the SLS Program and look ahead to important milestones in 2020 and beyond.

John H Honeycutt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Rendered Natural and Artificial Lighting Environments in Real Time Lunar South Pole Simulations

NASA’s Artemis campaign is making heavy use of simulation to help return humans to the lunar surface by the end of the decade. There are several aspects of the lunar surface and its environment which must be accurately modeled before these simulations can be relied upon to influence decisions being made under these programs. Digital Lunar Exploration Sites, a paper submitted to the 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference, outlined the process used to generate the lunar surface in a digital environment. This paper will expand upon this topic and delve into the steps being taken by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) to properly verify and validate these simulations, with a focus on the visual aspects of the environment. Natural lighting validation relies in part on the wealth of data generated during the Apollo program. Many images taken by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface have been replicated in the simulated environments to gain confidence in the accuracy of terrain and lighting models. However, because the environment the Artemis astronauts will experience at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) is dissimilar from the near-equatorial Apollo sites, other validation techniques must be applied. At the LSP, the sun crests only about three degrees above the horizon and when combined with the lack of a lunar atmosphere, lighting in this region is often very different than what a human would experience on Earth. Solar illumination, earthshine, human eye response, solar blooming, lunar regolith optical properties, and shadows cast by rocks and crater walls will play a significant role in an astronaut’s ability to safely conduct an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) or perform a traverse with a lunar rover. Approaches for validation of these aspects of the rendered LSP environment are considered in this paper. In addition to natural lighting, approaches for the validation of artificial lighting models at the LSP are discussed. The JSC Lighting Lab has been studying the illumination profile of the Exploration Infomatics Subsystem (xINFO) lighting on the Exploration EVA Mobility Unit (xEMU). How these lights interact with the solar illumination and the shadows being cast on the lunar surface is of particular interest, so the validity of models representing these lights in a human-in-the-loop virtual reality environment becomes very important. This paper also touches on some of the simulation performance considerations when a Human in the Loop (HITL) is present, which drives the need for real time rendering of the environment. Natural and artificial lighting will play a crucial role to decisions being made when planning and executing missions at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) and it is vitally important to understand the LSP environment before we return.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRS2023

Approaches for Validation of Lighting Environments in Realtime Lunar South Pole Simulations

NASA’s Artemis campaign is making heavy use of simulation to help return humans to the lunar surface by the end of the decade. There are several aspects of the lunar surface and its environment which must be accurately modeled before these simulations can be relied upon to influence decisions being made under these programs. Digital Lunar Exploration Sites, a paper submitted to the 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference, outlined the process used to generate the lunar surface in a digital environment. This paper will expand upon this topic and delve into the steps being taken by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) to properly verify and validate these simulations, with a focus on the visual aspects of the environment. Natural lighting validation relies in part on the wealth of data generated during the Apollo program. Many images taken by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface have been replicated in the simulated environments to gain confidence in the accuracy of terrain and lighting models. However, because the environment the Artemis astronauts will experience at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) is dissimilar from the near-equatorial Apollo sites, other validation techniques must be applied. At the LSP, the sun crests only about 1.5 degrees above the horizon and when combined with the lack of a lunar atmosphere, lighting in this region is often very different than what a human would experience on Earth. Solar illumination, earthshine, human eye response, solar blooming, lunar regolith optical properties, and shadows cast by rocks and crater walls will play a significant role in an astronaut’s ability to safely conduct an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) or perform a traverse with a lunar rover. Approaches for validation of these aspects of the rendered LSP environment are considered in this paper. In addition to natural lighting, approaches for the validation of artificial lighting models at the LSP are discussed. The JSC Lighting Lab has been studying the illumination profile of the Exploration Informatics Subsystem (xINFO) lighting on the Exploration EVA Mobility Unit (xEMU). How these lights interact with the solar illumination and the shadows being cast on the lunar surface is of particular interest, so the validity of models representing these lights in a human-in-the-loop virtual reality environment becomes very important. This paper also touches on some of the simulation performance considerations when a Human in the Loop (HITL) is present, which drives the need for realtime rendering of the environment. Natural and artificial lighting will play a crucial role to decisions being made when planning and executing missions at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) and it is vitally important to understand the LSP environment before we return.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Wire-break Ignition Testing of Materials for Spacesuit Fire Hazard Control

The input design constraints applied to the extravehicular activity (EVA) spacesuit pose a significant challenge for mitigation of fire hazards. To minimize fatigue and increase comfort of the crewmember operating the suit, the suit pressure is lowered below sea level conditions with typical EVA suit designs operating with 4.3 psia (29.7 kPa). With the lowered operating pressures and the use of closed-loop life support, the suit requires elevated concentrations of oxygen, typically >95%. At these oxygen concentrations, nearly the entirety of the suit internal materials are flammable. This leaves one remaining possible control leg of the fire triangle: ignition sources. Since the Gemini and Apollo programs, this has been a risk that has undergone constant reassessment, with a focus on improved mitigation. After the Apollo I fire, an arc ignition method was developed and used to quantify ignition thresholds for in-suit materials resulting in a current limit for powered in-suit devices applied to all subsequent suit designs. After the discovery of a frayed spacesuit biomed cable on STS-113 during the Shuttle Program, the previous arcing method was repeated with additional methods developed to extend the testing further. One of those methods was wire-break ignition testing, in which the current in a single strand of wire was progressively increased, preheating the material in proximity with a resultant break and the application of a reasonably repeatable arc to ignite the material, all while exposed in the selected environment. This method was used to test a suite of spacesuit materials providing relative performance with respect to ignition with this configuration for application of energy. This paper discusses extension of the current data set to address recent material additions, lowering of energy test levels for quantification of materials too low to measure in previous testing, as well as future plans to improve this method.

Colin Campbell↗
NASA NTRS1964

The moonship.

Apollo program history including present state of systems testing

ESCAPE ROCKET↗
NASA NTRS2006

Space-Proven Medical Monitor: The Total Patient-Care Package

The primary objective of the Gemini Program was to develop techniques that would allow for advanced, long-duration space travel, a prerequisite of the ensuing Apollo Program that would put man safely on the Moon before the end of the decade. In order to carry out this objective, NASA worked with a variety of innovative companies to develop propulsion systems, onboard computers, and docking capabilities that were critical to the health of Gemini spacecraft, as well as life-support systems and physiological-monitoring devices that were critical to the health of Gemini astronauts. One of these companies was Spacelabs Medical, Inc., the pioneer of what is commonly known today as medical telemetry. Spacelabs Medical helped NASA better understand man s reaction to space through a series of bioinstrumentation devices that, for the first time ever, were capable of monitoring orbiting astronauts physical conditions in real time, from Earth. The company went on to further expand its knowledge of monitoring and maintaining health in space, and then brought it down to Earth, to dramatically change the course of patient monitoring in the field of health care.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Toward an IMU-based Space Suit Motion Capture System

Spacesuits are complex engineering systems that sustain human health and enable performance outside of Earth-like environments. These systems must support human mobility and physical workload demands while minimizing injury risk during extravehicular activity (EVA). Future EVA on the lunar surface during the Artemis program is expected to be more frequent and require higher physical workloads than previous EVAs during the ISS, Shuttle, or Apollo programs. Hence it is important to optimize future as well as current spacesuits to be efficient and comfortable for the success of space and planetary missions. To enable this, an efficient method is needed to test these spacesuits on the ground.When testing spacesuits in ground environments, it is often necessary to understand the kinematics of the suit to validate the design against relevant requirements or characterize the physical workload necessary to operate the suit. This is a challenging task for traditional optical motion capture (OMC) approaches: suit-mounted OMC markers are easily occluded by the subject or environment and may become detached during testing. Controlling lighting and reflectivity of objects in the motion capture volume is also difficult. Fixed-position OMC cameras also constrain testing to a small and contrived laboratory environment, disallowing kinematics capture in field environments.One promising alternative is the use of suit-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs). These sensors are small, unobtrusive, and portable, but come at the cost of increased sensor noise and complexity of the software and mathematics to analyze the collected data. To this end, engineers at NASA are developing the Augmented Suit Inverse Kinematics (ASIK) system, a complete motion capture methodand inverse kinematics solver which relies solely on a network of wireless IMUs attached to the major kinematic segments of the spacesuit. The ASIK modeling language allows for the simple inclusion of probabilistic priors such as suit size and shape or IMU positions and rotations. Furthermore, to increase accuracy and reduce operational overhead to use this motion capture approach, the developed inverse kinematics solver exploits so-called self-calibratingalgorithmic techniques, which reduce the need for precise alignment of the sensors on the segments or scripted functional calibration procedures. The ASIK system was tested in a 7-subject pilot study. Each subject donned NASA’s new prototype exploration spacesuit in the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The subjects were outfitted with a set of 14 APDM (Portland, OR, USA) Opal IMUs, 12 of which were used in the ASIK model to estimate lower body and trunk kinematics. The subjects were also outfitted with a set of reflective OMC markers and traditional OMC data was collected and processed. Presented results will include characterization of ASIK-derived suit joint angles accuracy against an optical motion capture datum. Discussion of these results, as well as discussion of system calibration and nuances of mathematical observability, will be included.If successful, IMU-based motion capture will enable testing and validation of spacesuits more frequently, with less overhead, in more extreme environments. Future work will apply these techniques to common spacesuit testing tasks, such as gait, mobility, and balance assessment, physical workload characterization, and ergonomics evaluations.

Timothy Mcgrath↗
NASA NTRS2005

Technology Challenges for Deep-Throttle Cryogenic Engines for Space Exploration

Historically, cryogenic rocket engines have not been used for in-space applications due to their additional complexity, the mission need for high reliability, and the challenges of propellant boil-off. While the mission and vehicle architectures are not yet defined for the lunar and Martian robotic and human exploration objectives, cryogenic rocket engines offer the potential for higher performance and greater architecture/mission flexibility. In-situ cryogenic propellant production could enable a more robust exploration program by significantly reducing the propellant mass delivered to low earth orbit, thus warranting the evaluation of cryogenic rocket engines versus the hypergolic bi-propellant engines used in the Apollo program. A multi-use engine. one which can provide the functionality that separate engines provided in the Apollo mission architecture, is desirable for lunar and Mars exploration missions because it increases overall architecture effectiveness through commonality and modularity. The engine requirement derivation process must address each unique mission application and each unique phase within each mission. The resulting requirements, such as thrust level, performance, packaging, bum duration, number of operations; required impulses for each trajectory phase; operation after extended space or surface exposure; availability for inspection and maintenance; throttle range for planetary descent, ascent, acceleration limits and many more must be addressed. Within engine system studies, the system and component technology, capability, and risks must be evaluated and a balance between the appropriate amount of technology-push and technology-pull must be addressed. This paper will summarize many of the key technology challenges associated with using high-performance cryogenic liquid propellant rocket engine systems and components in the exploration program architectures. The paper is divided into two areas. The first area describes how the mission requirements affect the engine system requirements and create system level technology challenges. An engine system architecture for multiple applications or a family of engines based upon a set of core technologies, design, and fabrication approaches may reduce overall programmatic cost and risk. The engine system discussion will also address the characterization of engine cycle figures of merit, configurations, and design approaches for some in-space vehicle alternatives under consideration. The second area evaluates the component-level technology challenges induced from the system requirements. Component technology issues are discussed addressing injector, thrust chamber, ignition system, turbopump assembly, and valve design for the challenging requirements of high reliability, robustness, fault tolerance, deep throttling, reasonable performance (with respect to weight and specific impulse).

Brown, Kendall K.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Kennedy Space Center's Command and Control System - "Toasters to Rocket Ships"

This slide presentation reviews the history of the development of the command and control system at Kennedy Space Center. From a system that could be brought to Florida in the trunk of a car in the 1950's. Including the development of larger and more complex launch vehicles with the Apollo program where human launch controllers managed the launch process with a hardware only system that required a dedicated human interface to perform every function until the Apollo vehicle lifted off from the pad. Through the development of the digital computer that interfaced with ground launch processing systems with the Space Shuttle program. Finally, showing the future control room being developed to control the missions to return to the moon and Mars, which will maximize the use of Commercial-Off-The Shelf (COTS) hardware and software which was standards based and not tied to a single vendor. The system is designed to be flexible and adaptable to support the requirements of future spacecraft and launch vehicles.

Lougheed, Kirk↗
NASA NTRS2007

International Collaboration in Lunar Exploration

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration commits the United States to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 using the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle. Like the Apollo program of the 1960s and 1970s, this effort will require preliminary reconnaissance in the form of robotic landers and probes. Unlike Apollo, some of the data NASA will rely upon to select landing sites and conduct science will be based on international missions as well, including SMART-1, SELENE, and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Opportunities for international cooperation on the moon also lie in developing lunar exploration technologies. The European Space Agency's SMART-1 orbiter (Figure 1) is making the first comprehensive inventory of key chemical elements in the lunar surface. It is also investigating the impact theory of the moon's formation.'

Morris, K. Bruce↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Quest for Engineering Innovation at NASA's Marshall Space Flight (MSFC)

A recent NASA team, chartered to examine innovation within the Agency, captured the meaning of the word innovation as the "application of creative ideas to improve and generate value for the organization". The former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden shared his own thoughts about innovation in a memo with all employees that stated, "At NASA, we are dedicated to innovation, bold ideas, and excellence." Innovation turns out to be one of the major driving forces behind the work produced at NASA. It seems failure is often what has driven NASA to be more innovative. Fifty years ago, the Apollo 1 tragedy killed three astronauts when fire erupted in their command module. NASA had to bear the responsibility of such loss and at the same time work smarter in order to obtain the dream to reach the moon by the end of the 1960s. Through this circumstance, NASA engineers developed a revolutionary replacement for the combustible nylon astronaut suits so the Apollo program could continue. A material called Beta Cloth was born. This material was used to produce noncombustible space suits for all Apollo astronauts, enabling the United States to ultimately land 12 Americans on the moon. Eventually this material was used as the roof system in the Denver International Airport, showing relevance and applications of NASA innovations to real-world need. Innovative ideas are also driven by the need to accomplish NASA missions and to improve the way we produce our products. MSFC engineers are advancing technologies in additive manufacturing of liquid rocket engines in order to reduce the number of parts, design time, and the cost of the engines. NASA is working with academia to eliminate the need for miles of sensor cables by investigating innovations in wireless sensors. In order to enable future exploration missions to Mars, MSFC engineers are pursuing innovative approaches in diverse areas such as the use of ionic liquids for life support systems and composite cryogenic tanks, very low leakage valves to contain propulsion fluids, and natural, non-toxic inhibitors to eliminate the buildup of biofilms in the water systems planned for future crewed Mars missions. Although results are encouraging, we cannot rest on our past accomplishments. In order to overcome breathtaking technical challenges in space exploration, we must continue to promote a culture supporting growth, breakthroughs and disruptive innovations.

Turner, James E.↗
NASA NTRS2015

JSC Advanced Curation: Research and Development for Current Collections and Future Sample Return Mission Demands

Curation of NASA's astromaterials sample collections is a demanding and evolving activity that supports valuable science from NASA missions for generations, long after the samples are returned to Earth. For example, NASA continues to loan hundreds of Apollo program samples to investigators every year and those samples are often analyzed using instruments that did not exist at the time of the Apollo missions themselves. The samples are curated in a manner that minimizes overall contamination, enabling clean, new high-sensitivity measurements and new science results over 40 years after their return to Earth. As our exploration of the Solar System progresses, upcoming and future NASA sample return missions will return new samples with stringent contamination control, sample environmental control, and Planetary Protection requirements. Therefore, an essential element of a healthy astromaterials curation program is a research and development (R&D) effort that characterizes and employs new technologies to maintain current collections and enable new missions - an Advanced Curation effort. JSC's Astromaterials Acquisition & Curation Office is continually performing Advanced Curation research, identifying and defining knowledge gaps about research, development, and validation/verification topics that are critical to support current and future NASA astromaterials sample collections. The following are highlighted knowledge gaps and research opportunities.

Fries, M. D.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Space Program Advocacy Can Distort Project Management and Damage Systems Engineering

Over-optimistic project advocacy often causes exaggerated performance claims and underestimated costs and schedules. This can distort project management and damage systems engineering. NASA projects such as the space shuttle and Hubble are extreme examples. NASA's spectacular success in the Apollo moon landings seems to have produced overconfidence and carelessness, but also to have gained tolerance for unrealistic claims and forgiveness when they were proven wrong. Apollo risk analysis predicted many astronaut fatalities. This was believed but was potentially damaging to the Apollo program, so risk analysis was discontinued. The moon landings beat bad odds because Apollo obsessively reduced risk. Its success seemed to confirm that risk analysis was unreasonably pessimistic and that risk could be overcome by good engineering. This understanding caused risk to be increased during space shuttle engineering and led to an unnecessarily dangerous approach. The shuttle design placed a fragile spacecraft next to the fuel tanks and failed to provide crew escape or launch abort. These design decisions directly caused the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. After Challenger, risk analysis was re-established. The current rocket and capsule design does consider risk and the result strongly resembles Apollo. Apollo advocacy led NASA to abandon risk analysis and this was ultimate cause of the Shuttle tragedies. Excessive advocacy that distorts risk, cost, and schedule could be prevented in an ideal organization that used systems engineering to make rational and fair decisions. However, most real organizations accommodate human and group needs using informal methods often described as "the system." Humans have biases, use innate decision making heuristics, instinctively rely on "gut feel," and establish deviant groups through groupthink. Expecting organizations to become totally rational is impractical, but specific problems such as neglecting risk and underestimating cost and schedule can be directly challenged with some hope of success.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Apollo experience report: Mission planning for Apollo entry

The problems encountered and the experience gained in the entry mission plans, flight software, trajectory-monitoring procedures, and backup trajectory-control techniques of the Apollo Program should provide a foundation upon which future spacecraft programs can be developed. Descriptions of these entry activities are presented. Also, to provide additional background information needed for discussion of the Apollo entry experience, descriptions of the entry targeting for the Apollo 11 mission and the postflight analysis of the Apollo 10 mission are presented.

Graves, C. A.↗