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 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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↗

NASA NTRS2024

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

James Gentile↗

NASA NTRS2013

Feasibility of a Dragon-Derived Mars Lander for Scientific and Human-Precursor Missions

A minimally-modified SpaceX Dragon capsule launched on a Falcon Heavy rocket presents the possibility of a new low-cost, high-capacity Mars lander for robotic missions. We have been evaluating such a "Red Dragon" platform as an option for the Icebreaker Discovery Program mission concept. Dragon is currently in service ferrying cargo to and from the International Space Station, and a crew transport version is in development. The upcoming version, unlike other Earth-return vehicles, exhibits most of the capabilities necessary to land on Mars. In particular, it has a set of high-thrust, throttleable, storable bi-propellant "SuperDraco" engines integrated directly into the capsule that are intended for launch abort and powered landings on Earth. These thrusters provide the possibility of a parachute-free, fully-propulsive deceleration at Mars from supersonic speeds to the surface, a descent approach which would also scale well to larger future human landers. We will discuss the motivations for exploring a Red Dragon lander, the current results of our analysis of its feasibility and capabilities, and the implications of the platform for the Icebreaker mission concept. In particular, we will examine entry, descent, and landing (EDL) in detail. We will also describe the modifications to Dragon necessary for interplanetary cruise, EDL, and operations on the Martian surface. Our analysis to date indicates that a Red Dragon lander is feasible and that it would be capable of delivering more than 1000 kg of payload to sites at elevations three kilometers below the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) reference, which includes sites throughout most of the northern plains and Hellas.

Karcz, John S.↗

NASA NTRS2013

DSN Capabilities to Support Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program - Exploration Missions (EM-1 & EM-2)

No abstract available

return link data service↗

NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of Dual Pressurized Rover Operations During Simulated Planetary Surface Exploration

Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Reusable Hybrid Propellant Modules for Outer-Space Transport

A report summarizes the concept of reusable hybrid propellant modules (HPMs), which would be used in outer space for long-term cryogenic storage of liquefied spacecraft-propellant gases, including for example, oxygen and hydrogen for combustion-based chemical rocket engines and xenon for electric thrusters. The HPM concept would provide the fundamental building block for an efficient, reusable in-space transportation system for both crewed and uncrewed missions. Each HPM would be equipped to implement an advanced zero-boil-off method of managing cryogenic fluids, and would include a fluid-transfer interface comprising standardized fittings that would be compatible with fittings on all supply facilities and on spacecraft to be supplied. The HPM, combined with a chemical or electric orbital transfer spacecraft, would provide an integrated propulsion system. HPMs would supply chemical propellant for time-critical transfers such as crewed missions, and utilize the more efficient electric-propulsion transfer vehicles to transport filled HPMs to the destinations and to return empty HPMs back to near-Earth orbits or other intermediate locations for replenishment and reuse. The HPM prepositioned using electric propulsion would provide the chemical propellant for the crew s return trip in a much more efficient manner than a chemical-only approach. The propellants to fill the HPMs would be delivered from the Earth or other initial supply locations to the intermediate locations by use of automated, compatible spacecraft designed specifically for that purpose. Additionally, multiple HPMs could be aggregated and positioned in orbits and on planets, moons, and asteroids to supply fluids to orbiting and interplanetary spacecraft.

Mazanek, Daniel D.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Aerospace News: Space Shuttle Commemoration. Volume 2, No. 7

The complex space shuttle design was comprised of four components: the external tank, two solid rocket boosters (SRB), and the orbiter vehicle. Six orbiters were used during the life of the program. In order of introduction into the fleet, they were: Enterprise (a test vehicle), Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. The space shuttle had the unique ability to launch into orbit, perform on-orbit tasks, return to earth and land on a runway. It was an orbiting laboratory, International Space Station crew delivery and supply replenisher, satellite launcher and payload delivery vehicle, all in one. Except for the external tank, all components of the space shuttle were designed to be reusable for many flights. ATK s reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM) were designed to be flown, recovered, and the metal components reused 20 times. Following each space shuttle launch, the SRBs would parachute into the ocean and be recovered by the Liberty Star and Freedom Star recovery ships. The recovered boosters would then be received at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Hangar AF facility for disassembly and engineering post-flight evaluation. At Hangar AF, the RSRM field joints were demated and the segments prepared to be returned to Utah by railcar. The segments were then shipped to ATK s facilities in Clearfield for additional evaluation prior to washout, disassembly and refurbishment. Later the refurbished metal components would be transported to ATK s Promontory facilities to begin a new cycle. ATK s RSRMs were manufactured in Promontory, Utah. During the Space Shuttle Program, ATK supported NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center whose responsibility was for all propulsion elements on the program, including the main engines and solid rocket motors. On launch day for the space shuttle, ATK s Launch Site Operations employees at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) provided lead engineering support for ground operations and NASA s chief engineer. It was ATK s responsibility to have a representative in Firing Room 2 at KSC in case of potential motor problems. However, the last time ATK was responsible for a space shuttle launch slip was 1989. During launch, engineers were also stationed in Promontory on teleconference with counterparts at KSC in the event their support was required.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2009

Austere Human Missions to Mars

The Design Reference Architecture 5 (DRA 5) is the most recent concept developed by NASA to send humans to Mars in the 2030 time frame using Constellation Program elements. DRA 5 is optimized to meet a specific set of requirements that would provide for a robust exploration program to deliver a new six-person crew at each biennial Mars opportunity and provide for power and infrastructure to maintain a highly capable continuing human presence on Mars. This paper examines an alternate architecture that is scaled back from DRA 5 and might offer lower development cost, lower flight cost, and lower development risk. It is recognized that a mission set using this approach would not meet all the current Constellation Mars mission requirements; however, this 'austere' architecture may represent a minimum mission set that would be acceptable from a science and exploration standpoint. The austere approach is driven by a philosophy of minimizing high risk or high cost technology development and maximizing development and production commonality in order to achieve a program that could be sustained in a flat-funded budget environment. Key features that would enable a lower technology implementation are as follows: using a blunt-body entry vehicle having no deployable decelerators, utilizing aerobraking rather than aerocapture for placing the crewed element into low Mars orbit, avoiding the use of liquid hydrogen with its low temperature and large volume issues, using standard bipropellant propulsion for the landers and ascent vehicle, and using radioisotope surface power systems rather than a nuclear reactor or large area deployable solar arrays. Flat funding within the expected NASA budget for a sustained program could be facilitated by alternating cargo and crew launches for the biennial Mars opportunities. This would result in two assembled vehicles leaving Earth orbit for Mars per Mars opportunity. The first opportunity would send two cargo landers to the Mars surface to preposition a habitat, supplies, and exploration equipment. The next opportunity, two years later, would send to Mars orbit 1) a lander with a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and 2) a crewed Mars Transit Habitat with an Orion CEV for Earth return. The following opportunity, two years after the first crew, would go back to cargo-only launches. This alternation of cargo and crew opportunities results in a sustainable launch rate of six Ares V launches every two years. It is notable that four of the six launches per Mars opportunity are identical, build-to-print, Tran-Mars Injection stages. This type of production rate could lend itself well to a COTStype service provider, and would make it feasible to have a live spare in place in the event of a single launch failure.

landers↗

NASA NTRS2019

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep Space Access for CubeSats

NASA is embarking on a new generation of missions to the Moon, known as the Artemis program. The Agency’s new super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS), is a critical enabling capability for these efforts, which will serve as a proving ground for future crewed expeditions to Mars. SLS is designed to return astronauts to the Moon in the Orion spacecraft and to launch more mass and provide more volume for critical payloads than commercially available vehicles, giving NASA a unique asset for deep space exploration. When performance margin and volume is available, as it is on the first flight, Artemis I (previously Exploration Mission-1), SLS can offer CubeSats access to deep space, beyond Earth’s orbit. The Artemis I flight has 13 6U (14 kg) CubeSats manifested, and the Program is currently accepting proposals for 6U and 12U payloads for the Artemis II flight through the agency’s CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) program. Proposals from U.S.-based payload developers to fly on Artemis II will be accepted through CSLI until November 4, 2019. When ridesharing on SLS deep space missions, CubeSats must demonstrate they will not interfere with primary mission objectives. The 13 Artemis I CubeSats that hail from industry, academia, NASA and its international partners represent an array of exciting deep space science investigations and technology demonstrations that may help inform future Artemis missions. The initial SLS Block 1 vehicle for the Artemis I flight is fully manufactured; several elements are complete and have been delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) Program at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), which has responsibility for integrating and launching the SLS and Orion stack. Completed elements of the Artemis I vehicle include the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA), which houses the 13 Artemis I CubeSats. With the Artemis I flight hardware and software nearing completion, work is in progress for the second Block 1 launcher, designated for the crewed Artemis II flight. Hardware is being manufactured for every element of the Artemis II vehicle. In this paper, the author will review the status of the Artemis I vehicle and the payloads manifested for the initial flight. Information on the Secondary Payload Deployment System (SPDS) that the SLS Program provides to payload developers will also be included.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Issues that Drive Waste Management Technology Development for Space Missions

Waste management technologies for space life support systems are currently at low development levels. Manual compaction of waste in plastic bags and overboard disposal to earth return vehicles are the primary current waste management methods. Particularly on future missions, continuance of current waste management methods would tend to expose the crew to waste hazards, forfeit recoverable resources such as water, consume valuable crew time, contaminate planetary surfaces, and risk return to Earth of extraterrestrial life. Improvement of waste management capabilities is needed for adequate management of wastes. Improvements include recovery of water and other resources, conversion of waste to states harmless to humans, long-term containment of wastes, and disposal of waste. Current NASA requirements documents on waste management are generally not highly detailed. More detailed requirements are needed to guide the development of waste management technologies that will adequately manage waste. In addition to satisfying requirements, waste management technologies must also recover resources. Recovery of resources such as water and habitat volume can reduce mission cost. This paper explores the drivers for waste management technology development including requirements and resource recovery.

Fisher, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Apollo 13 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Challenges

Combustion and rupture of a liquid oxygen tank during the Apollo 13 mission provides lessons and insights for future spacecraft designers and operations personnel who may never, during their careers, have participated in saving a vehicle and crew during a spacecraft emergency. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) challenges were the reestablishment of attitude control after the oxygen tank incident, re-establishment of a free return trajectory, resolution of a ground tracking conflict between the LM and the Saturn V S-IVB stage, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) alignments, maneuvering to burn attitudes, attitude control during burns, and performing manual GNC tasks with most vehicle systems powered down. Debris illuminated by the Sun and gaseous venting from the Service Module (SM) complicated crew attempts to identify stars and prevented execution of nominal IMU alignment procedures. Sightings on the Sun, Moon, and Earth were used instead. Near continuous communications with Mission Control enabled the crew to quickly perform time critical procedures. Overcoming these challenges required the modification of existing contingency procedures.

Goodman, John L.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Altair Lunar Lander Consumables Management

The Altair lunar lander is scheduled to return humans to the moon in the year 2020. Keeping the crew of 4 and the vehicle functioning at their best while minimizing lander mass requires careful budgeting and management of consumables and cooperation with other constellation elements. Consumables discussed here include fluids, gasses, and energy. This paper presents the lander's missions and constraints as they relate to consumables and the design solutions that have been employed in recent Altair conceptual designs.

Polsgrove, Tara↗

NASA NTRS1993

Thermal Protection System design studies for lunar crew module

The results of a study to predict aeroheating and Thermal Protection System (TPS) requirements for manned entry vehicles returning to Earth from the moon are presented. The effects of vehicle size and lunar-return strategies on the aerothermodynamic environment and TPS design were assessed. Study guidelines were based on an Apollo Command Module (CM) configuration and lunar return strategies included direct entry and aerocapture followed by Low Earth Orbit entry (LEO). Convective heating was obtained by the boundary layer integral matrix procedure (BLIMP) code, and radiative heating was computed with the QRAD program. The AESOP-STAB code and the AESOP-THERM code were used for TPS analysis for ablating materials and nonablating materials respectively. Results indicated that there was an optimum size for minimum heating and that direct entry had higher heating rates than aerocapture. Aerocapture resulted in higher heat loads and TPS weight. The TPS weight factor was 6-8 percent for all lunar return strategies, with the TPS weight being about 50 percent less than that of the original Apollo CM vehicle.

Williams, S. D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Orion Guidance and Control Ascent Abort Algorithm Design and Performance Results

During the ascent flight phase of NASA s Constellation Program, the Ares launch vehicle propels the Orion crew vehicle to an agreed to insertion target. If a failure occurs at any point in time during ascent then a system must be in place to abort the mission and return the crew to a safe landing with a high probability of success. To achieve continuous abort coverage one of two sets of effectors is used. Either the Launch Abort System (LAS), consisting of the Attitude Control Motor (ACM) and the Abort Motor (AM), or the Service Module (SM), consisting of SM Orion Main Engine (OME), Auxiliary (Aux) Jets, and Reaction Control System (RCS) jets, is used. The LAS effectors are used for aborts from liftoff through the first 30 seconds of second stage flight. The SM effectors are used from that point through Main Engine Cutoff (MECO). There are two distinct sets of Guidance and Control (G&C) algorithms that are designed to maximize the performance of these abort effectors. This paper will outline the necessary inputs to the G&C subsystem, the preliminary design of the G&C algorithms, the ability of the algorithms to predict what abort modes are achievable, and the resulting success of the abort system. Abort success will be measured against the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) abort performance metrics and overall performance will be reported. Finally, potential improvements to the G&C design will be discussed.

Proud, Ryan W.↗