Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Reusable ultralight personnel carrier (RUPC)

Attention is given to a personnel-carrying space vehicle concept developed to minimize the cost of access to LEO. The RUPC could provide alternate access to Space Station Freedom (SSF) for six passengers per flight. It can also bring and return small amounts of cargo, up to and including one SSF double rack. These capabilities are ideal for utilization flights during man-tended operations at SSF and for crew rotation during permanently manned periods. The RUPC is a reusable conical reentry vehicle and disposable adapter with propulsion and power subsystems. Avionics subsystem benefit from advanced low-power high-performance microelectronics developed for both the civilian and military space sectors. The RUPC core cabin concept has growth potential for other applications, including assured crew return, ground-launched crew rescue, delivery and retrieval of SSF cargo, and crew cabin for flights to the moon.

Clark, B. C., III↗
NASA NTRS2010

Estimating the Reliability of a Soyuz Spacecraft Mission

Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2010, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? Is it safer to continue to fly the 30 year old Shuttle fleet for crew transportation and cargo resupply than the Soyuz? Should we extend the life of the Shuttle Program? How does the development of the Orion/Ares crew transportation system affect these decisions? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project is currently underway. Though the projects ultimate goal is to return to the Moon and then to Mars, the launch vehicle and spacecraft s first mission will be for crew transportation to and from the ISS. The reliability targets are currently several times higher than the Shuttle and possibly even the Soyuz. Can these targets be compared to the reliability of the Soyuz to determine whether they are realistic and achievable? To help answer these questions this paper will explore how to estimate the reliability of the Soyuz Launcher/Spacecraft system, compare it to the Space Shuttle, and its potential impacts for the future of manned spaceflight. Specifically it will look at estimating the Loss of Mission (LOM) probability using historical data, reliability growth, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment techniques

Lutomski, Michael G.↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Systems Engineering Approach for Astronaut Missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration directs NASA to design and develop a new generation of safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation systems to hlfill the Nation s strategic goals and objectives. These launch vehicles will provide the capability for astronauts to conduct scientific exploration that yields new knowledge from the unique vantage point of space. American leadership in opening new fi-ontiers will improve the quality of life on Earth for generations to come. The Exploration Launch Projects office is responsible for delivering the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) that will loft the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into low-Earth orbit (LEO) early next decade, and for the heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) that will deliver the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) to LEO for astronaut return trips to the Moon by 2020 in preparation for the eventual first human footprint on Mars. Crew travel to the International Space Station will be made available as soon possible after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010.

Cook, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Systems Engineering Approach for Astronaut Missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration directs NASA to design and develop a new generation of safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation systems to hlfill the Nation s strategic goals and objectives. These launch vehicles will provide the capability for astronauts to conduct scientific exploration that yields new knowledge from the unique vantage point of space. American leadership in opening new fi-ontiers will improve the quality of life on Earth for generations to come. The Exploration Launch Projects office is responsible for delivering the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) that will loft the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into low-Earth orbit (LEO) early next decade, and for the heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) that will deliver the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) to LEO for astronaut return trips to the Moon by 2020 in preparation for the eventual first human footprint on Mars. Crew travel to the International Space Station will be made available as soon possible after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Project APEX: Advanced manned exploration of the Martian moon Phobos

A preliminary design has been developed for a manned mission to the Martian moon Phobos. The spacecraft is to carry a crew of five and will be launched from Low Earth Orbit in the year 2010. The outbound trajectory to Mars uses a gravitational assisted swingby of Venus and takes eight months to complete. The stay at Phobos is scheduled for 60 days. During this time, the crew will be busily engaged in setting up a prototype fuel processing facility. The vehicle will then return to Earth orbit after a total mission duration of 656 days. The spacecraft is powered by three nuclear thermal rockets which also provide the primary electrical power via dual mode operation. The overall spacecraft length is 110 m, and the total mass departing from Low Earth Orbit is 900 metric tons.

Eisley, Joe G.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Cargo Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Environmental Control and Life Support Integration

The International Space Station s (ISS) largest crew and cargo resupply vehicle, the Space Shuttle, retired in 2011. To help augment ISS resupply and return capability, NASA announced a project to promote the development of Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) for the ISS in January of 2006. By December of 2008, NASA entered into space act agreements with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for COTS development and ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS). The intent of CRS is to fly multiple resupply missions each year to ISS with SpaceX s Dragon vehicle providing resupply and return capabilities and Orbital Science Corporation s Cygnus vehicle providing resupply capability to ISS. The ISS program launched an integration effort to ensure that these new commercial vehicles met the requirements of the ISS vehicle and ISS program needs. The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) requirements cover basic cargo vehicle needs including maintaining atmosphere, providing atmosphere circulation, and fire detection and suppression. The ISS-COTS integration effort brought unique challenges combining NASA s established processes and design knowledge with the commercial companies new initiatives and limited experience with human space flight. This paper will discuss the ISS ECLS COTS integration effort including challenges, successes, and lessons learned.

Duchesne, Stephanie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SpaceX Dragon 1 Post Flight MMOD Inspection Campaign

Introduction The SpaceX Dragon 1 spacecraft performed 20 resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) between 2012 and 2020. After each mission, a team from the NASA John-son Space Center Hypervelocity Impact Technology Group inspected each Dragon 1 capsule for hypervelocity impact damage features. Data from these inspections are collected into a database that includes impact feature dimensions as well as the location on the vehicle. Additional details on the type and size of particle that produced the damage site are provided when sampling data and definitive spectroscopic analysis results are available. Observation data can be compared with impact estimates from risk assessment codes as a check on the micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) environment predictions. Scope A general description of the areas of the vehicle that were inspected are provided as well as mission details such as exposure duration and launch dates. The paper documents the general inspection procedure for collection of data and the post inspection data analysis process. It also provides details of the observation data collected as well as the results of analysis of intact samples collected for spectroscopic analysis to discern the source of the impacting particle. A comparison between observed impacts and the expected number of damage features calculated by Bumper 3 with the latest MMOD environments are also presented. Findings Statistics on the >300 impact features documented in the database will provide insight into the depth to diameter ratios and other relationships. The quality of the comparison between the observations and code predictions are dependent on several factors. The paper provides de-tails of each of these variables. (1) Damage equations (2) Impact condition assumptions a. Projectile density b. Impact speed c. Impact angle (3) Analysis results a. pre-flight vs. on-orbit damage b. MMOD vs. non-MMOD Conclusions and Recommendations The ISS visiting vehicle impact database is an ongoing project. SpaceX provides crew rotations as well as resupply and cargo return with the Dragon 2 spacecraft. Sierra Space is manifested for resupply and cargo return services starting in 2023. Boeing is expected to provide crew rotations as well. All of these spacecraft will provide additional opportunities for post flight MMOD inspections of space exposed hardware. Acknowledgements Over the course of the inspection campaign various personnel at the SpaceX Texas Test Site in McGregor and at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne CA provided valuable support to this activity.

James L Hyde↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Unlocking the Microbiome of the International Space Station

With the start of human occupation more than 22 years ago, the microbiome of International Space Station (ISS) has been monitored to assess risk to both crew and craft. Historically, this monitoring has been achieved through onboard culture and ground-based analyses. Data spanning this timeframe are descriptive of a semi-closed, human occupied environment with associations to crew changes and process escapes within the environmental control and life support systems. While this approach has served to provide alerts to anomalies and overall confidence in the controls in place, the data are limited to the media type and growth conditions used. The bias toward the detection of culturable organisms has depicted an overall lack in biodiversity. As NASA leaves the ISS to focus on exploration, it is critical to fully understand its microbiome and its possible association to the noted positive influence on crew and vehicle health. The implementation of culture-independent, nanopore sequencing-based studies, both onboard the ISS and with returned ground samples, is revealing a more thorough depiction of the microbiome. As noted with pervious culture-based data, there is a common core microbiome across time and location, but key distinct areas of greater diversity exist. Through further investigation, these areas are emerging as unique ecological niches, potentially resulting in environmentally driven microbial selection. Moreover, the presence of some noted taxa within these unique locations has implications for crew health, planetary protection, and controls used in future spacecraft systems. The ability to perform in situ profiling of the ISS microbiome is transforming how NASA assesses risk and is a critical tool towards monitoring the establishment of the environmental microbiome in exploration spacecraft.

Sarah Stahl-Rommel↗
NASA NTRS1993

Future space transportation system architecture avionics requirements

NASA began a multi-center study in January 1993 to examine options for providing the most cost effective space transportation system in the future. The key advanced avionics requirements for these vehicle concepts are envisioned to provide significantly improved operational efficiency and effectiveness. It is very desirable to have adaptive guidance, navigation, and control approaches that will allow launch and return in almost any weather condition. The vehicles must be able to accommodate atmospheric density variations and winds without software changes. The flight operations must become much more autonomous in all flight regimes like an aircraft, and preflight checkout should make use of the onboard systems. When the vehicle returns to the launch site, subsystem health must be known and maintenance tasks scheduled accordingly. Ground testing of most subsystems must be eliminated. Also, the health monitoring system must be designed to enhance the ability to abort the mission significantly and save the crew and the vehicle. The displays and controls must be much less complex than current systems and must significantly reduce pilot work load. It is important to have low power, light weight displays and controls. Rendezvous and docking and all flight phases must have autopilot capability to reduce pilot work load for routine operations and in abort situations. The vehicles must have the demonstrated ability to return to the launch site. Abort from all mission phases can put additional demands on the communications system.

Stone, Howard↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRS2009

Constellation Program Thermal and Environmental Control and Life Support System Status: 2009 - 2010

The Constellation Program (CxP) consists of spacecrafts, launch vehicles, and support systems to execute the Exploration Architecture. The Program is currently divided into three distinct phases. The first phase is to develop a vehicle to provide limited cargo resupply capability and allow crew member rotation to the International Space Station (ISS). The second phase is to support the return of humans to the moon. The final phase is currently envisioned to allow the delivery of humans and cargo to Mars for an extended time. To implement this phased approach the CxP is currently working on the first vehicle and support systems to replace the Space Shuttle and allow continued access to space. This paper provides a summary of the CxP Thermal and Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) work that that has occurred across the different parts of the Program in support of these three phases over the past year.

Williams, David E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Apollo Medical Operations Project: Recommendations to Improve Crew Health and Performance for Future Exploration Missions and Lunar Surface Operations

Medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and Lunar habitat are currently being developed. Crews returning to the lunar surface will construct the lunar habitat and conduct scientific research. Inherent in aggressive surface activities is the potential risk of injury to crewmembers. Physiological responses and the operational environment for short forays during the Apollo lunar missions were studied and documented. Little is known about the operational environment in which crews will live and work and the hardware will be used for long-duration lunar surface operations. Additional information is needed regarding productivity and the events that affect crew function such as a compressed timeline. The Space Medicine Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) requested a study in December 2005 to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The operationally oriented goals of this project were to develop or modify medical requirements for new exploration vehicles and habitats, create a centralized database for future access, and share relevant Apollo information with the multiple entities at NASA and abroad participating in the exploration effort.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Apollo Medical Operations Project: Recommendations to Improve Crew Health and Performance for Future Exploration Missions and Lunar Surface Operations

Medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and Lunar habitat are currently being developed. Crews returning to the lunar surface will construct the lunar habitat and conduct scientific research. Inherent in aggressive surface activities is the potential risk of injury to crewmembers. Physiological responses to and the operational environment of short forays during the Apollo lunar missions were studied and documented. Little is known about the operational environment in which crews will live and work and the hardware that will be used for long-duration lunar surface operations.Additional information is needed regarding productivity and the events that affect crew function such as a compressed timeline. The Space Medicine Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) requested a study in December 2005 to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The operationally oriented goals of this project were to develop or modify medical requirements for new exploration vehicles and habitats, create a centralized database for future access, and share relevant Apollo information with the multiple entities at NASA and abroad participating in the exploration effort.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Compaction of Space Mission Wastes

The current solid waste management system employed on the International Space Station (ISS) consists of compaction, storage, and disposal. Wastes such plastic food packaging and trash are compacted manually and wrapped in duct tape footballs by the astronauts. Much of the waste is simply loaded either into the empty Russian Progress vehicle for destruction on reentry or into Shuttle for return to Earth. This manual method is wasteful of crew time and does not transition well to far term missions. Different wastes onboard spacecraft vary considerably in their characteristics and in the appropriate method of management. In advanced life support systems for far term missions, recovery of resources such as water from the wastes becomes important. However waste such as plastic food packaging, which constitutes a large fraction of solid waste (roughly 21% on ISS, more on long duration missions), contains minimal recoverable resource. The appropriate management of plastic waste is waste stabilization and volume minimization rather than resource recovery. This paper describes work that has begun at Ames Research Center on development of a heat melt compactor that can be used on near term and future missions, that can minimize crew interaction, and that can handle wastes with a significant plastic composition. The heat melt compactor takes advantage of the low melting point of plastics to compact plastic materials using a combination of heat and pressure. The US Navy has demonstrated successful development of a similar unit for shipboard application. Ames is building upon the basic approach demonstrated by the Navy to develop an advanced heat melt type compactor for space mission type wastes.

Fisher, John↗
NASA NTRS2010

Commercial Orbital Transportation Cargo Services Environmental Control and Life Support Integration

The International Space Station s (ISS) largest crew and cargo resupply vehicle, the Space Shuttle, will retire in 2011. To help augment ISS resupply and return capability, NASA announced a project to promote the development of Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) for the ISS in January of 2006. By December of 2008, NASA entered into space act agreements with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for COTS development and ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS). The intent of CRS is to fly multiple resupply missions each year to ISS with SpaceX s Dragon vehicle providing resupply and return capabilities and Orbital Science Corporation s Cygnus vehicle providing resupply capability to ISS. The ISS program launched an integration effort to ensure that these new commercial vehicles met the requirements of the ISS vehicle and ISS program needs. The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) requirements cover basic cargo vehicle needs including maintaining atmosphere, providing atmosphere circulation, and fire detection and suppression. The ISS-COTS integration effort brought unique challenges combining NASA s established processes and design knowledge with the commercial companies new initiatives and limited experience with human space flight. This paper will discuss the ISS ECLS COTS integration effort including challenges, successes, and lessons learned.

Duchesne, Stephanie↗