Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EXPLORATION”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗
NASA NTRS1994

The Moon as a way station for planetary exploration

The Moon can be on the pathway to the exploration of other planets in the solar system in three distinct ways: science, systems and technology experience, and as a fuel depot. The most important of these from the point of view of near term potential is to provide systems and technology development that increases capability and reduces the cost and risk of Mars exploration. The development of capability for a lunar program, if planned properly, can significantly influence strategies for sending humans to Mars. In conclusion, the exploration of the Moon should come before the exploration of Mars. This is a statement of developmental and operational logic that is almost self evident. Technological advancement could, however, make a different strategy reasonable. Principally, the development of a propulsion capability that could substantially reduce round trip mission times to Mars (to say 6 to 12 months) could eliminate much of the argument that the Moon is an essential stepping stone. This would reduce the problem to one of similitude with current space station program concepts. However, for any reasonably near term program, such technology does not appear likely to be available. Thus, the answer remains that lunar exploration should come first, and the expectation that it will make Mars exploration much more affordable and safe. The use of lunar propellant in an Earth-Mars transportation system is not practical with current propulsion systems; however, the discovery of caches of water ice at a lunar pole could change considerably the strategy for utilization of lunar resources in planetary exploration.

Duke, M. B.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Aerobots and Hydrobots for Planetary Exploration

In this new Millennium, NASA will expand its presence in space. Many new planetary bodies have been discovered, and some previously known bodies are now believed to have oceans. We now know of 66 moons in our own Solar System, one with an atmosphere, 16 with water ice or oceans, and 5 with both. In addition, we now know of 20 extra-solar planets. In order to expand our presence in space and explore in a cost effective manner, we need a repertoire of new types of planetary exploration vehicles to explore both atmospheres and oceans. To address this need a spectrum of new classes of vehicles are being developed. These include aerobots and hydrobots, and incorporate Department of Defense miniaturization developments and smart materials. This paper outlines: the remarkable miniaturization developments applicable to robotic vehicles for the exploration of planetary atmospheres and oceans; Aerobots, the vehicles designed for planetary atmospheric exploration; Hydrobots, those designed for planetary ocean exploration; planetary atmospheric data; and Europa ocean exploration missions.

Barrett, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2004

Simulation Based Acquisition for NASA's Office of Exploration Systems

In January 2004, President George W. Bush unveiled his vision for NASA to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. This vision includes the goal to extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon no later than 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations. In response to this vision, NASA has created the Office of Exploration Systems (OExS) to develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures to explore and support decisions about human exploration destinations, including the development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). Within the OExS organization, NASA is implementing Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA), a robust Modeling & Simulation (M&S) environment integrated across all acquisition phases and programs/teams, to make the realization of the President s vision more certain. Executed properly, SBA will foster better informed, timelier, and more defensible decisions throughout the acquisition life cycle. By doing so, SBA will improve the quality of NASA systems and speed their development, at less cost and risk than would otherwise be the case. SBA is a comprehensive, Enterprise-wide endeavor that necessitates an evolved culture, a revised spiral acquisition process, and an infrastructure of advanced Information Technology (IT) capabilities. SBA encompasses all project phases (from requirements analysis and concept formulation through design, manufacture, training, and operations), professional disciplines, and activities that can benefit from employing SBA capabilities. SBA capabilities include: developing and assessing system concepts and designs; planning manufacturing, assembly, transport, and launch; training crews, maintainers, launch personnel, and controllers; planning and monitoring missions; responding to emergencies by evaluating effects and exploring solutions; and communicating across the OExS enterprise, within the Government, and with the general public. The SBA process features empowered collaborative teams (including industry partners) to integrate requirements, acquisition, training, operations, and sustainment. The SBA process also utilizes an increased reliance on and investment in M&S to reduce design risk. SBA originated as a joint Industry and Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to define and integrate an acquisition process that employs robust, collaborative use of M&S technology across acquisition phases and programs. The SBA process was successfully implemented in the Air Force s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.

Hale, Joe↗
NASA NTRS2004

STS Derived Exploration Launch Operations

A key aspect of the new space exploration programs will be the approach to optimize launch operations. A STS Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) Program can provide a cost effective, low risk, and logical step to launch all of the elements of the exploration program. Many benefits can be gained by utilizing the synergy of a common launch site as an exploration spaceport as well as evolving the resources of the current Space Shuttle Program (SSP) to meet the challenges of the Vision for Space Exploration. In particular, the launch operation resources of the SSP can be transitioned to the exploration program and combined with the operations efficiencies of unmanned EELVs to obtain the best of both worlds, resulting in lean launch operations for crew and cargo missions of the exploration program. The SDLV Program would then not only capture the extensive human space flight launch operations knowledge, but also provide for the safe fly-out of the SSP through continuity of system critical skills, manufacturing infrastructure, and ability to maintain and attract critical skill personnel. Thus, a SDLV Program can smoothly transition resources from the SSP and meet the transportation needs to continue the voyage of discovery of the space exploration program.

Best, Joel↗
NASA NTRS2006

Mission Architecture Comparison for Human Lunar Exploration

The Vision for Space Exploration outlines a bold new national space exploration policy that holds as one of its primary objectives the extension of human presence outward into the Solar System, starting with a return to the Moon in preparation for the future exploration of Mars and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently engaged in several preliminary analysis efforts in order to develop the requirements necessary for implementing this objective in a manner that is both sustainable and affordable. Such analyses investigate various operational concepts, or mission architectures , by which humans can best travel to the lunar surface, live and work there for increasing lengths of time, and then return to Earth. This paper reports on a trade study conducted in support of NASA s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate investigating the relative merits of three alternative lunar mission architecture strategies. The three architectures use for reference a lunar exploration campaign consisting of multiple 90-day expeditions to the Moon s polar regions, a strategy which was selected for its high perceived scientific and operational value. The first architecture discussed incorporates the lunar orbit rendezvous approach employed by the Apollo lunar exploration program. This concept has been adapted from Apollo to meet the particular demands of a long-stay polar exploration campaign while assuring the safe return of crew to Earth. Lunar orbit rendezvous is also used as the baseline against which the other alternate concepts are measured. The first such alternative, libration point rendezvous, utilizes the unique characteristics of the cislunar libration point instead of a low altitude lunar parking orbit as a rendezvous and staging node. Finally, a mission strategy which does not incorporate rendezvous after the crew ascends from the Moon is also studied. In this mission strategy, the crew returns directly to Earth from the lunar surface, and is thus referred to as direct return. Figures of merit in the areas of safety and mission success, mission effectiveness, extensibility, and affordability are used to evaluate and compare the lunar orbit rendezvous, libration point rendezvous, and direct return architectures, and this paper summarizes the results of those assessments.

Geffre, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth s moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a systems engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD s Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. these products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Developing Advanced Human Support Technologies for Planetary Exploration Missions

The United States Vision for Space Exploration calls for sending robots and humans to explore the Earth's moon, the planet Mars, and beyond. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing a set of design reference missions that will provide further detail to these plans. Lunar missions are expected to provide a stepping stone, through operational research and evaluation, in developing the knowledge base necessary to send crews on long duration missions to Mars and other distant destinations. The NASA Exploration Systems Directorate (ExSD), in its program of bioastronautics research, manages the development of technologies that maintain human life, health, and performance in space. Using a system engineering process and risk management methods, ExSD's Human Support Systems (HSS) Program selects and performs research and technology development in several critical areas and transfers the results of its efforts to NASA exploration mission/systems development programs in the form of developed technologies and new knowledge about the capabilities and constraints of systems required to support human existence beyond Low Earth Orbit. HSS efforts include the areas of advanced environmental monitoring and control, extravehicular activity, food technologies, life support systems, space human factors engineering, and systems integration of all these elements. The HSS Program provides a structured set of deliverable products to meet the needs of exploration programs. These products reduce the gaps that exist in our knowledge of and capabilities for human support for long duration, remote space missions. They also reduce the performance gap between the efficiency of current space systems and the greater efficiency that must be achieved to make human planetary exploration missions economically and logistically feasible. In conducting this research and technology development program, it is necessary for HSS technologists and program managers to develop a common currency for decision making and the allocation of funding. A high level assessment is made of both the knowledge gaps and the system performance gaps across the program s technical project portfolio. This allows decision making that assures proper emphasis areas and provides a key measure of annual technological progress, as exploration mission plans continue to mature.

Berdich, Debra P.↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Overview: The Crew Launch Vehicle and the Cargo Launch Vehicle Systems

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration (January 2004) serves as the foundation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. As the NASA Administrator outlined during his confirmation hearing in April 2005, these include: 1) Flying the Space Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. 2) Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. 3) Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the human space flight program to focus on exploration. 4) Completing the International Space Station (ISS) in a manner consistent with international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. 5) Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. 6) Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. In spring 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). The ESAS team performed in-depth evaluations of a number of space transportation architectures and provided recommendations based on their findings? The ESAS analysis focused on a human-rated Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) for astronaut transport and a heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) to carry equipment, materials, and supplies for lunar missions and, later, the first human journeys to Mars. After several months of intense study utilizing safety and reliability, technical performance, budget, and schedule figures of merit in relation to design reference missions, the ESAS design options were unveiled in summer 2005. As part of NASA's systems engineering approach, these point of departure architectures have been refined through trade studies during the ongoing design phase leading to the development phase that begins in 2008. Comprehensive reviews of engineering data and business assessments by both internal and independent reviewers serve as decision gates to ensure that systems can fully meet customer and stakeholder requirements. This paper provides the current CLV and CaLV configuration designs and gives examples of the progress being made during the first year of this significant effort. Safe, reliable, cost-effective space transportation systems are a foundational piece of America s future in space and the next step in realizing the plan for revitalizing lunar capabilities on the passageway to the human exploration of Mars. While building on legacy knowledge and heritage hardware for risk reduction, NASA will apply lessons learned from developing these new launch vehicles to the growth path for future missions. The elements for mission success and continued U.S. leadership in space have been assembled over the past year. As NASA designs and develops these two new systems over the next dozen years, visible progress, such as that reported in this paper, may sustain the national will to stay the course across political administrations and weather the inevitable trials that will be experienced during this challenging endeavor.

Snoddy, Jimmy R.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Applied Nanotechnology for Human Space Exploration

A viewgraph presentation describing nanotechnology for human space exploration is shown. The topics include: 1) NASA's Strategic Vision; 2) Exploration Architecture; 3) Future Exploration Mission Requirements Cannot be met with Conventional Materials; 4) Nanomaterials: Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes; 5) Applied Nanotechnology at JSC: Fundamentals to Applications; 6) Technology Readiness Levels (TRL); 7) Growth, Modeling, Diagnostics and Production; 8) Characterization: Purity, Dispersion and Consistency; 9) Processing; 10) Nanoelectronics: Enabling Technologies; 11) Applications for Human Space Exploration; 12) Exploration Life Support: Atmosphere Revitalization System; 13) Advanced and Exploration Life Support: Regenerable CO2 Removal; 14) Exploration Life Support: Water Recovery; 15) Advanced Life Support: Water Disinfection/Recovery; 16) Power and Energy: Supercapacitors and Fuel Cells; 17) Nanomaterials for EMI Shielding; 18) Active Radiation Dosimeter; 19) Advanced Thermal Protection System (TPS) Repair; 20) Thermal Radiation and Impact Protection (TRIPS); 21) Nanotechnology: Astronaut Health Management; 22) JSC Nanomaterials Group Collaborations.

Yowell, Leonard L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Scientific Goals and Objectives for the Human Exploration of Mars: 1. Biology and Atmosphere/Climate

To prepare for the exploration of Mars by humans, as outlined in the new national vision for Space Exploration (VSE), the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG), chartered by NASA's Mars Exploration Program (MEP), formed a Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG), in March 2007. HEM-SAG was chartered to develop the scientific goals and objectives for the human exploration of Mars based on the Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities.1 The HEM-SAG is one of several humans to Mars scientific, engineering and mission architecture studies chartered in 2007 to support NASA s plans for the human exploration of Mars. The HEM-SAG is composed of about 30 Mars scientists representing the disciplines of Mars biology, climate/atmosphere, geology and geophysics from the U.S., Canada, England, France, Italy and Spain. MEPAG selected Drs. James B. Garvin (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) and Joel S. Levine (NASA Langley Research Center) to serve as HEMSAG co-chairs. The HEM-SAG team conducted 20 telecons and convened three face-to-face meetings from March through October 2007. The management of MEP and MEPAG were briefed on the HEM-SAG interim findings in May. The HEM-SAG final report was presented on-line to the full MEPAG membership and was presented at the MEPAG meeting on February 20-21, 2008. This presentation will outline the HEM-SAG biology and climate/atmosphere goals and objectives. A companion paper will outline the HEM-SAG geology and geophysics goals and objectives.

Levine, Joel S.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Robots Explore the Farthest Reaches of Earth and Space

"We were the first that ever burst/Into that silent sea," the title character recounts in Samuel Taylor Coleridge s opus Rime of the Ancient Mariner. This famous couplet is equally applicable to undersea exploration today as surface voyages then, and has recently been applied to space travel in the title of a chronicle of the early years of human space flight ("Into That Silent Sea: Trailblazers of the Space Era, 1961-1965"), companion to the +n the Shadow of the Moon book and movie. The parallel is certainly fitting, considering both fields explore unknown, harsh, and tantalizingly inhospitable environments. For starters, exploring the Briny Deep and the Final Frontier requires special vehicles, and the most economical and safest means for each employ remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). ROVs have proven the tool of choice for exploring remote locations, allowing scientists to explore the deepest part of the sea and the furthest reaches of the solar system with the least weight penalty, the most flexibility and specialization of design, and without the need to provide for sustaining human life, or the risk of jeopardizing that life. Most NASA probes, including the historic Voyager I and II spacecraft and especially the Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, feature remote operation, but new missions and new planetary environments will demand new capabilities from the robotic explorers of the future. NASA has an acute interest in the development of specialized ROVs, as new lessons learned on Earth can be applied to new environments and increasingly complex missions in the future of space exploration.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Human-Robot Planetary Exploration Teams

The EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA) project at NASA Johnson Space Center studies human-robot interaction and robotic assistance for future human planetary exploration. Over the past four years, the ERA project has been performing field tests with one or more four-wheeled robotic platforms and one or more space-suited humans. These tests have provided experience in how robots can assist humans, how robots and humans can communicate in remote environments, and what combination of humans and robots works best for different scenarios. The most efficient way to understand what tasks human explorers will actually perform, and how robots can best assist them, is to have human explorers and scientists go and explore in an outdoor, planetary-relevant environment, with robots to demonstrate what they are capable of, and roboticists to observe the results. It can be difficult to have a human expert itemize all the needed tasks required for exploration while sitting in a lab: humans do not always remember all the details, and experts in one arena may not even recognize that the lower level tasks they take for granted may be essential for a roboticist to know about. Field tests thus create conditions that more accurately reveal missing components and invalid assumptions, as well as allow tests and comparisons of new approaches and demonstrations of working systems. We have performed field tests in our local rock yard, in several locations in the Arizona desert, and in the Utah desert. We have tested multiple exploration scenarios, such as geological traverses, cable or solar panel deployments, and science instrument deployments. The configuration of our robot can be changed, based on what equipment is needed for a given scenario, and the sensor mast can even be placed on one of two robot bases, each with different motion capabilities. The software architecture of our robot is also designed to be as modular as possible, to allow for hardware and configuration changes. Two focus areas of our research are safety and crew time efficiency. For safety, our work involves enabling humans to reliably communicate with a robot while moving in the same workspace, and enabling robots to monitor and advise humans of potential problems. Voice, gesture, remote computer control, and enhanced robot intelligence are methods we are studying. For crew time efficiency, we are investigating the effects of assigning different roles to humans and robots in collaborative exploration scenarios.

Tyree, Kimberly↗
NASA NTRS2000

An Integrated Exploration Strategy

Many new scientific findings in planetary science (potential life in a Mars meteorite, possible frozen water at the Lunar Poles, permanently lit region at the lunar south pole, recent water flow on Mars) provide a compelling case for humans to once again leave low earth orbit and explore. Robotic missions are capable of conducting science, but only humans can explore and discover. The challenge is to build an affordable exploration program. This can be done by aggressively evolving our current systems, developing high payoff technologies, leveraging off commercial and other agencies' programs, and developing a set of core capabilities to be used to explore a variety of destinations. NASA has a Strategic Roadmap based on detailed mission studies to develop these core technologies and capabilities to allow human space exploration. Advances in human support, launch vehicle. improvements, development of in-space transportation systems, efficient power generation and distribution, and In-Situ Resource Utilization are all required to meet the exploration challenge. The groundwork today will provide the technology and tools needed to conduct safe, affordable, and efficient exploration to the moon, asteroids, deep space observatories and Mars.

Conley, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2012

Human Missions to Near-Earth Asteroids: An Update on NASA's Current Status and Proposed Activities for Small Body Exploration

Introduction: Over the past several years, much attention has been focused on the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). Two independent NASA studies examined the feasibility of sending piloted missions to NEAs, and in 2009, the Augustine Commission identified NEAs as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. More recently the current U.S. presidential administration directed NASA to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s. This directive became part of the official National Space Policy of the United States of America as of June 28, 2010. Dynamical Assessment: The current near-term NASA human spaceflight capability is in the process of being defined while the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS) are still in development. Hence, those NEAs in more accessible heliocentric orbits relative to a minimal interplanetary exploration capability will be considered for the first missions. If total mission durations for the first voyages to NEAs are to be kept to less than one year, with minimal velocity changes, then NEA rendezvous missions ideally will take place within 0.1 AU of Earth (approx about 5 million km or 37 lunar distances). Human Exploration Considerations: These missions would be the first human expeditions to inter-planetary bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system and would prove useful for testing technologies required for human missions to Mars, Phobos and Deimos, and other Solar System destinations. Missions to NEAs would undoubtedly provide a great deal of technical and engineering data on spacecraft operations for future human space exploration while conducting detailed scientific investigations of these primitive objects. Current analyses of operational concepts suggest that stay times of 15 to 30 days may be possible at these destinations. In addition, the resulting scientific investigations would refine designs for future extraterrestrial In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), and assist in the development of hazard mitigation techniques for planetary defense. Conclusions: The scientific and hazard mitigation benefits, along with the programmatic and operational benefits of a human venture beyond the Earth-Moon system, make a piloted mission to a NEA using NASA's proposed human exploration systems a compelling endeavor

Abell, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Desert RATS 2011: Near-Earth Asteroid Human Exploration Operations

The Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2011 field test involved the planning and execution of a series of exploration scenarios under operational conditions similar to those that would be expected during a human exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEA). The focus was on understanding the operations tempo during simulated NEA exploration and the implications of communications latency and limited data bandwidth. Anchoring technologies and sampling techniques were not evaluated due to the immaturity of those technologies and the inability to meaningfully test them at D-RATS. Reduced gravity analogs and simulations are being used to fully evaluate Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) and extravehicular (EVA) operations and interactions in near-weightlessness at a NEA as part of NASA s integrated analogs program. Hypotheses were tested by planning and performing a series of 1-day simulated exploration excursions comparing test conditions all of which involved a single Deep Space Habitat (DSH) and either zero, one, or two MMSEVs; three or four crewmembers; one of two different communications bandwidths; and a 100-second roundtrip communications latency between the field site and Houston. Excursions were executed at the Black Point Lava Flow test site with a Mission Control Center and Science Support Room at Johnson Space Center (JSC) being operated with 100-second roundtrip communication latency to the field. Crews were composed of astronauts and professional field geologists and teams of Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach (EPO) experts also supported the mission simulations each day. Data were collected separately from the Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and EPO teams to assess the test conditions from multiple perspectives. For the operations tested, data indicates practically significant benefits may be realized by including at least one MMSEV and by including 4 versus 3 crewmembers in the NEA exploration architecture as measured by increased Scientific Data Quality, EVA Exploration Time, Capability Assessment Ratings, and Overall Acceptability ratings by Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach teams. A combination of text and voice was used to effectively communicate over the 100-second roundtrip communications latency and increased communication bandwidth yielded a small but practically significant improvement in Overall Acceptability as rated by the Science team, although the impact of bandwidth on scientific strategic planning was not assessed. No effect of increased bandwidth was observed with respect to Crew, Mission Operations, or EPO team ratings of Overall Acceptability.

Abercromby, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Notional Example of Understanding Human Exploration Traverses on the Lunar Surface

Mr. Gruener received an M.S. in physical science, with an emphasis in planetary geology, from the University of Houston-Clear Lake in 1994. He then began working with NASA JSC.s Solar System Exploration Division on the development of prototype planetary science instruments, the development of a mineral-based substrate for nutrient delivery to plant growth systems in bio-regenerative life support systems, and in support of the Mars Exploration Rover missions in rock and mineral identification. In 2004, Mr. Gruener again participated in a renewed effort to plan and design missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. He participated in many exploration planning activities, including NASA.s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Global Exploration Strategy Workshop, Lunar Architecture Team 1 and 2, Constellation Lunar Architecture Team, the Global Point of Departure Lunar Exploration Team, and the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture. Mr. Gruener has also been an active member of the science team supporting NASA.s Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS).

Gruener, John↗