SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Return Vehicle”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 235 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1988

Mars Exploration: Mission and System Analysis of the Split Sprint Mission

The information presented in this report provides detailed mission and system analysis of the Split Sprint Mission to Mars. These data were generated from September 1987 through July 1988 and involved numerous individuals within Program Development. This mission derives its name from the fact that the total mission payload is split between two vehicles, a cargo vehicle, and a piloted vehicle. The cargo vehicle carries the Mars lander and propellant for the piloted vehicle return to Earth. Then approximately 1 1/2 years later, the piloted vehicle carries the crew on a higher energy "sprint” trajectory to Mars. The advantages of the Split Sprint Mission is that the payload for the piloted vehicle is minimized and the crew would be in space for only 14 months. Mission and system data are presented for a Sprint Mission in the year 2004. Many important aspects of the mission were studied in detail. These include orbital lighting and lifetime analysis, Mars parking orbit selection, Earth departure window analysis, lander descent and ascent performance, vehicle aerobraking requirements, mission orbital maneuvers, and many other analyses listed in the Table of Contents. Emphasis was placed on vehicle performance analysis which ranged from recovery of the Earth departure stages to aerocapture of the Earth Return Capsule. There is also a section describing the computer programs that were used for this study. These programs provide many useful tools for future studies of manned planetary missions. This introductory section will give an overall view of the Split Sprint Mission and describe the orbital operations and vehicles that were studied.

Mars Architecture Team↗

NASA NTRS1990

A radiological assessment of space nuclear power operations near Space Station Freedom

In order to accomplish NASA's more ambitious exploration goals, nuclear reactors may be used in the vicinity of Space Station Freedom (SSF) either as power sources for coorbiting platforms or as part of the propulsion system for departing and returning personnel or cargo vehicles. This study identifies ranges of operational parameters, such as parking distances and reactor cooldown times, which would reasonably guarantee that doses to the SSF crew from all radiation sources would be below guidelines recently recommended by the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements. The specific scenarios considered include: (1) the launch and return of a nuclear electric propulsion vehicle, (2) the launch and return of a nuclear thermal rocket vehicle, (3) the operation of an SP-100 class reactor on a coorbiting platform, (4) the activation of materials near operating reactors, (5) the storage and handling of radioisotope thermal generator units, and (6) the storage and handling of fresh and previously operated reactors. Portable reactor shield concepts were examined for relaxing the operational constraints imposed by unshielded (for human proximity operations) reactors and that might also be used to provide additional SSF crew protection from natural background radiation.

Stevenson, Steve↗

NASA NTRS1989

Logistics resupply and emergency crew return system for Space Station Freedom

Sometime in the late 1990's, if all goes according to plan, Space Station Freedom will allow the United States and its cooperating partners to maintain a permanent presence in space. Acting as a scientific base of operations, it will also serve as a way station for future explorations of the Moon and perhaps even Mars. Systems onboard the station will have longer lifetimes, higher reliability, and lower maintenance requirements than seen on any previous space flight vehicle. Accordingly, the station will have to be resupplied with consumables (air, water, food, etc.) and other equipment changeouts (experiments, etc.) on a periodic basis. Waste materials and other products will also be removed from the station for return to Earth. The availability of a Logistics Resupply Module (LRM), akin to the Soviet's Progress vehicle, would help to accomplish these tasks. Riding into orbit on an expendable launch vehicle, the LRM would be configured to rendezvous autonomously and dock with the space station. After the module is emptied of its cargo, waste material from the space station would be loaded back into it. The module would then begin its descent to a recovery point on Earth. Logistics Resupply Modules could be configured in a variety of forms depending on the type of cargo being transferred. If the LRM's were cycled to the space station in such a way that at least one vehicle remained parked at the station at all times, the modules could serve double duty as crew emergency return capsules. A pressurized LRM could then bring two or more crew-persons requiring immediate return (because of health problems, system failure, or unavoidable catastrophes) back to Earth. Large cost savings would be accrued by combining the crew return function with a logistics resupply system.

Ahne, D.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module Ascent Abort Coverage

The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is required to maintain continuous abort capability from lift off through destination arrival. This requirement is driven by the desire to provide the capability to safely return the crew to Earth after failure scenarios during the various phases of the mission. This paper addresses abort trajectory design considerations, concept of operations and guidance algorithm prototypes for the portion of the ascent trajectory following nominal jettison of the Launch Abort System (LAS) until safe orbit insertion. Factors such as abort system performance, crew load limits, natural environments, crew recovery, and vehicle element disposal were investigated to determine how to achieve continuous vehicle abort capability.

Tedesco, Mark B.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Project Columbiad: Mission to the Moon. Book 2, volume 3: Stage configuration designs; volume 4: Program plan

The Earth Orbital Rendezvous (EOR) configuration for the piloted mission is composed of three propulsive elements in addition to the Crew Module (CM): Primary Trans-Lunar Injection (PTLI), Lunar Braking Module (LBM), and Earth Return Module (ERM). The precursor mission is also composed of three propulsive elements in addition to its surface payloads: PTLI, LBM and the Payload Landing Module (PLM). Refer to Volume 1, Section 5.1 and 5.2 for a break-up of the different stages into the four launches. A quick summary is as follows: PTLI is on Launch 1 and 3 while the LBM, PLM, and surface payloads are on Launch 2 and another LBM, ERM, and CM on Launch 4. The precursor mission is designed to be as modular as possible with the piloted mission for developmental cost considerations. The following topics are discussed: launch vehicle description; primary trans-lunar injection stage; lunar braking module; earth return module; crew module; payload landing module; and surface payload description.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2007

Testing Lunar Return Thermal Protection Systems using Sub-Scale Flight Test Vehicles

A key objective of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration is to revisit the lunar surface. Such an ambitious goal requires the development of a new human-rated spacecraft, the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), to ferry crews to low earth orbit and to the moon. The successful conclusion of both types of missions will require a thermal protection system (TPS) capable of protecting the vehicle and crew from the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry. As a part of the TPS development, various materials are being tested in arcjet tunnels; however, the combined lunar return aerothermal environment of high heat flux, shear stress, and surface pressure cannot be duplicated using only existing ground test facilities. To ensure full TPS qualification, a flight test program using sub-scale Orion capsules has been proposed to test TPS materials and heat shield construction techniques under the most stressing combination of lunar return aerothermal environments. Originally called Testing Of Reentry Capsule Heat Shield, or TORCH, but later renamed LEX, for Lunar Reentry Experiment, the proposed flight test program is presented along with the driving requirements and descriptions of the vehicle and the TPS instrumentation suite slated to conduct in-flight measurements.

heatshield↗

NASA NTRS1986

Concept for a manned Mars flyby

A concept is presented for a three man crew to fly by the planet Mars. The ground rule for the study is to execute the mission as quickly as possible which dictates using late 1990's technologies and space infrastructure. The proposed mission described herein uses a preliminary concept for the agency's Manned Orbit Transfer Vehicle (MOTV) and proposed space station elements. The space vehicle will depart from the LEO space station and is delivered to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) by a future launch vehicle of a Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle (SDV) class. The trajectory parameters are chosen such that the mission duration is on the order of one year, with a two and one-half hour period within ten planetary radii of Mars. If the issues of acceptable crew g loads and entry vehicle heat load can be resolved, then the returning vehicle can aerobrake at Earth into a space station compatible orbit. Otherwise, a propulsive maneuver will be required to reduce vehicle velocity prior to Earth entry interface. It is possible to execute a mission of reasonable capability at an initial LEO departure weight of 716,208 pounds for the aerobraked case of 1,350,000 pounds for the propulsive case.

Barney B Roberts↗

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 NTRS2013

Orion GNC Mitigation Efforts for Van Allen Radiation

The Orion Crew Module (CM) is NASA's next generation manned space vehicle, scheduled to return humans to lunar orbit in the coming decade. The Orion avionics and GN&C architectures have progressed through a number of project phases and are nearing completion of a major milestone. The first unmanned test mission, dubbed "Exploration Flight Test One" (EFT-1) is scheduled to launch from NASA Kennedy Space Center late next year and provides the first integrated test of all the vehicle systems, avionics and software. The EFT-1 mission will be an unmanned test flight that includes a high speed re-entry from an elliptical orbit, which will be launched on an expendable launch vehicle (ELV). The ELV will place CM and the ELV upper stage into a low Earth orbit (LEO) for one revolution. After the first LEO, the ELV upper stage will re-ignite and place the combined upper stage/CM into an elliptical orbit whose perigee results in a high energy entry to test CM response in a relatively high velocity, high heating environment. While not producing entry velocities as high as those experienced in returning from a lunar orbit, the trajectory was chosen to provide higher stresses on the thermal protection and guided entry systems, as compared against a lower energy LEO entry. However the required entry geometry with constraints on inclination and landing site result in a trajectory that lingers for many hours in the Van Allen radiation belts. This exposes the vehicle and avionics to much higher levels of high energy proton radiation than a typical LEO or lunar trajectory would encounter. As a result, Van Allen radiation poses a significant risk to the Orion avionics system, and particularly the Flight Control Module (FCM) computers that house the GN&C flight software. The measures taken by the Orion GN&C, Flight Software and Avionics teams to mitigate the risks associated with the Van Allen radiation on EFT-1 are covered in the paper. Background on the Orion avionics subsystem is provided, as well as an overview of the GN&C software architecture. The measures taken to handle radiation induced failure of the one or both of the FCM's are presented, and finally simulation and actual hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) results are shown confirming the validity of the implementation. The paper presents an overview of the Orion avionics architecture describing the GNC sensors, onboard data network as well as the flight control computers and their planned restart capabilities. GN&C sensors include two Orion Inertial Measurement Units (OIMU's), a Vision Processing Unit (VPU) to process camera images, three barometric altimeters and a single GPS receiver. All of the sensors communicate to one of two Power and Data Units (PDU's). The PDU's multiplex analog and serial data from the sensors and write the data to the Orion Data Network (ODN). The OIMU s write measurement messages directly as onto the ODN, but they are routed through PDU network switches.

King, Ellis T.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Orion GN and C Mitigation Efforts for Van Allen Radiation

King, Ellis T.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Use Of The Operational Air Quality Monitor (AQM) For In-Flight Water Testing Project

A primary requirement for manned spaceflight is Environmental Health which ensures air and water contaminants, acoustic profiles, microbial flora, and radiation exposures within the cabin are maintained to levels needed for crew health and for vehicle system functionality. The reliance on ground analyses of returned samples is a limitation in the current environmental monitoring strategy that will prevent future Exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit. This proposal attempts to address this shortcoming by advancing in-flight analyses of water and air. Ground analysis of in-flight, air and water samples typically employ vapor-phase analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to identify and quantify organic compounds present in the samples. We envision the use of newly-developed direct ionization approaches as the most viable avenue leading towards an integrated analytical platform for the monitoring of water, air, and, potentially bio-samples in the cabin environment. Development of an in-flight instrument capable of analyzing air and water samples would be the logical next step to meeting the environmental monitoring needs of Exploration missions. Currently, the Air Quality Monitor (AQM) on-board ISS provides this specific information for a number of target compounds in the air. However, there is a significant subset of common target compounds between air and water. Naturally, the following question arises, "Can the AQM be used for both air and water quality monitoring?" Previous directorate-level IR&D funding led to the development of a water sample introduction method for mass spectrometry using electrothermal vaporization (ETV). This project will focus on the integration of the ETV with a ground-based AQM. The capabilities of this integrated platform will be evaluated using a subset of toxicologically important compounds.

Macatangay, Ariel↗

NASA NTRS1996

High Leverage Space Transportation System Technologies for Human Exploration Missions to the Moon and Beyond

The feasibility of returning humans to the Moon by 2004, the 35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, is examined assuming the use of existing launch vehicles (the Space Shuttle and Titan 4B), a near term, advanced technology space transportation system, and extraterrestrial propellant--specifically 'lunar-derived' liquid oxygen or LUNOX. The lunar transportation system (LTS) elements consist of an expendable, nuclear thermal rocket (NTR)-powered translunar injection (TLI) stage and a combination lunar lander/Earth return vehicle (LERV) using cryogenic liquid oxygen and hydrogen (LOX/LH2) chemical propulsion. The 'wet' LERV, carrying a crew of 2, is configured to fit within the Shuttle orbiter cargo bay and requires only modest assembly in low Earth orbit. After Earth orbit rendezvous and docking of the LERV with the Titan 4B-launched NTR TLI stage, the initial mass in low Earth orbit (IMLEO) is approx. 40 t. To maximize mission performance at minimum mass, the LERV carries no return LOX but uses approx. 7 t of LUNOX to 'reoxidize' itself for a 'direct return' flight to Earth followed by an 'Apollo-style' capsule recovery. Without LUNOX, mission capability is constrained and the total LTS mass approaches the combined Shuttle-Titan 4B IMLEO limit of approx. 45 t even with enhanced NTR and chemical engine performance. Key technologies are discussed, lunar mission scenarios described, and LTS vehicle designs and characteristics are presented. Mission versatility provided by using a small 'all LH2' NTR engine or a 'LOX-augmented' derivative, either individually or in clusters, for outer planet robotic orbiter, small Mars cargo, lunar 'commuter', and human Mars exploration class missions is also briefly discussed.

Borowski, Stanley K.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Orion Heat Shield Manufacturing Producibility Improvements for the EM-1 Flight Test Program

This paper describes how the Orion program is incorporating improvements in the heat shield design and manufacturing processes reducing programmatic risk and ensuring crew safety in support of NASA’s Exploration Missions. The Orion program successfully completed the EFT-1 flight test in 2014 and is currently developing the EM-1 spacecraft to meet the test objectives of an orbital mission to the moon and return to earth in 2019. Lessons learned from the EFT-1 manufacturing and flight test experience are being incorporated into a wide variety of vehicle systems and manufacturing processes to reduce risk to the Orion missions and flight crew. A critical contributor to crew safety is the heat shield that protects the crew capsule during re-entry through the earth’s atmosphere for return from deep space. The first flight test vehicle, EFT-1, was manufactured and tested in the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility at KSC to demonstrate early risk reduction including the functionality of the Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) for capsule safe return to earth. The approach for the EFT-1 heat shield utilized a low risk approach using Apollo heritage design and manufacturing processes using an Avcoat TPS ablator with a honeycomb substrate to provide a one piece heat shield to meet the mission re-entry heating environments. The manufacturing processes used honeycomb cell injection guns which were redeveloped from the Apollo Lunar Program processes to build the EFT-1 heat shield. The completed heat shield was transported across the country by aircraft to the O&C at KSC for installation onto the capsule. The EFT-1 heat shield successfully performed its mission and experienced ~80% of the re-entry velocity (50% heating rate) for a lunar return for an Exploration Mission. The second flight test vehicle is the EM-1 mission which will have additional flight systems installed to fly to the moon and return. Heat shield design and producibility improvements have been incorporated in the EM-1 vehicle to meet deep space mission and programmatic requirements. The design continues to use the Avcoat material, but in a “block” configuration to enable improvements in the application processes as well as additional improvements in the carrier structure design and manufacturing operations. Incorporating flight test results and producibility improvements from EFT-1 for the heat shield system design and processes have improved the thermal protection capability, improved the producibility, and cost for EM-1 flight test.

Producibility↗

NASA NTRS2012

The HAL 9000 Space Operating System Real-Time Planning Engine Design and Operations Requirements

In support of future deep space manned missions, an autonomous/automated vehicle, providing crew autonomy and an autonomous response planning system, will be required due to the light time delays in communication. Vehicle capabilities as a whole must provide for tactical response to vehicle system failures and space environmental effects induced failures, for risk mitigation of permanent loss of communication with Earth, and for assured crew return capabilities. The complexity of human rated space systems and the limited crew sizes and crew skills mix drive the need for a robust autonomous capability on-board the vehicle. The HAL 9000 Space Operating System[2] designed for such missions and space craft includes the first distributed real-time planning / re-planning system. This paper will detail the software architecture of the multiple planning engine system, and the interface design for plan changes, approval and implementation that is performed autonomously. Operations scenarios will be defined for analysis of the planning engines operations and its requirements for nominal / off nominal activities. An assessment of the distributed realtime re-planning system, in the defined operations environment, will be provided as well as findings as it pertains to the vehicle, crew, and mission control requirements needed for implementation.

Stetson, Howard↗

NASA NTRS2007

NASA CEV Reference Entry GN&C System and Analysis

As part of its overall objectives, the Orion spacecraft will be required to perform entry and Earth landing functions for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Lunar missions. Both of these entry scenarios will begin with separation of the Service Module (SM), making them unique from other Orion mission phases in that only the Command Module (CM) portion of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be involved, requiring a CM specific Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) system. Also common to these mission scenarios will be the need for GN&C to safely return crew (or cargo) to earth within the dynamic thermal and structural constraints of entry and within acceptable accelerations on the crew, utilizing the limited aerodynamic performance of the CM capsule. The lunar return mission could additionally require an initial atmospheric entry designed to support a precision skip and second entry, all to maximize downrange performance and ensure landing in the United States. This paper describes the Entry GN&C reference design, developed by the NASA-led team, that supports these entry scenarios and that was used to validate the Orion System requirements. Description of the reference design will include an overview of the GN&C functions, avionics, and effectors and will relate these to the specific design drivers of the entry scenarios, as well as the desire for commonality in vehicle systems to support the different missions. The discussion will also include the requirement for an Emergency Entry capability beyond that of the nominal performance of the multi-string GNC system, intended to return the crew to the earth in a survivable but unguided manner. Finally, various analyses will be discussed, including those completed to support validation efforts of the current CEV requirements, along with those on-going and planned with the intention to further refine the requirements and to support design development work in conjunction with the prime contractor. Some of these ongoing analyses will include work to size effectors (jets) and fuel budgets, to refine skip entry concepts, to characterize navigation performance and uncertainties, to provide for SM disposal offshore and to identify requirements to support target site selection.

Munday, S.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Neurovestibular Session Summary

Oman - The early mission operational problems caused by space motion sickness have been largely resolved in recent years. This has been achieved by appropriate timeline adjustments, voluntary head movement restriction, and judicious use of promethazine. Crew members now simply accept that some symptoms "come with the job," and usually last only a few days. But as more people have flown longer flights, we've seen cases of space sickness and inversion illusion that take several weeks to resolve. Visual reorientation illusions continue throughout long flights, and occasionally cause difficulties. EVA astronauts sometimes suddenly fear they will fall out of the payload bay or off of the RMS or Strella arms. Orientation and navigation in three dimensions in the MIR station reportedly does not come naturally, because modules have different visual verticals. It is clear that the neurovestibular problems of spaceflight have not disappeared. After return to Earth, many crew members are disoriented and ataxic in the first hour after return, and require assistance leaving the vehicle, Flight surgeons say that the longer the mission, the stronger the aftereffects, certain of which last for weeks. We do not yet know how to predict who will be afflicted. Looking ahead to 3-4 month long voyages to Mars, it seems obvious that if cruise is in O-G, the crew may encounter neurovestibular problems on arrival. Artificial G may be broadly effective as a countermeasure for many of the physiological changes of spaceflight, but from the neurovestibular perspective, it is a double-edged sword. We know that the Coriolis stimulus resulting from rotation is potentially disorienting and nauseogenic. But we don't yet know how much artificial G will be enough, nor how successfully people can adapt to a specific angular velocity and hypo G level. Development of countermeasures remains a big challenge for our neurovestibular community. Maintaining an interdisciplinary perspective is important. Three examples were presented at this meeting: 1) Transgenic animal experiments suggest that in addition to the light illumination cycle, vestibular inputs may also serve as an important input to the circadian system. 2) Radiation can cause important CNS effects in animals, including loss of spatial memory. 3) As described in our session, otolith inputs may contribute to cardiovascular regulation of orthostatic tolerance. Over the past three days, we've all enjoyed catching up with old friends, and making many new ones. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank Al Coats and the USRA DSLS staff for the great job they did in running this meeting. And keeping the emphasis on fun. And also my Co- Chair, Mal Cohen, who had more stamina than many of us, despite major surgery only three weeks ago. Mal and I have written a few lines describing each of the seventeen papers in our session, to give you a quick over-view, and as a guide to the full abstracts, We have grouped them under five themes: preflight and inflight countermeasurements, postlanding posture and locomotion deficits: assessment and prediction, adaptive processes, relationships among physical simuli, perceptions, and eye movements, vestibular contribution to human autonomic responses, and implications and recommendations.

Oman, Charles↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design, Development, and Use of a Lunar Lander Simulation for NASA's Artemis Program

This paper describes the design, development, and initial use of a generalized and configurable lunar lander simulation to support NASA’s Artemis Program. This simulation is being developed for the Crew Compartment Office (CrewCo) in the Human Landing Systems (HLS) program and is called the HLS CrewCo Lander Simulation (HCLS). The HCLS provides insight into the challenges associated with returning humans to the Moon and the particular difficulties of operating at the Lunar South Pole. The simulation models a generalized integrated lunar landing spacecraft based on a government reference design but can and has been adapted to model vendor specific designs as well. The simulation architecture and tool sets provide a flexible framework that allows for quickly prototyping and evaluating various aspects of a piloted lunar landing system. This includes the modeling of all principal human controlled flight phases: rendezvous and docking with crew transfer systems; docked orbital outpost operations; undocking and lunar transfer; lunar orbital operations; lunar deorbit, descent, and landing (DDL); lunar surface operations; lunar ascent; and return to the orbital outpost. The flexibility of the simulation allows for the integrated evaluation of potential vehicle subsystems, crew displays, guidance and control modes, and trajectory designs. The purpose of the HCLS is not to design the ideal lunar lander, but rather to understand and the strengths and weaknesses of vehicle design choices. This paper describes the basic simulation architecture and discusses the tool sets used to develop the HCLS. This includes a number of open source tool sets and publicly available data sets. This paper also describes some of the early use cases and findings. The primary focus of early HCLS use has been on the manual piloting task to safely get the crew to the desired landing site in case of a failure in the automated guidance system. Several guidance modes and cues have been implemented which allow a pilot to manually fly the vehicle to the targeted landing site starting anywhere from powered descent initiation. It has been a valuable tool for understanding what is required to manually fly a lunar lander as well as giving a sense of the vehicle dynamics, which are much different than anything that is flown on Earth. A number of experienced test pilots have participated in manual piloting evaluations using the HCLS and provided valuable feedback on the piloting task which has been very beneficial to NASA and the HLS program.

James Michael Gentile↗

NASA NTRS2024

Design, Development, and Use of a Lunar Lander Simulation for NASA's Artemis Program

Edwin Z Crues↗