SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Earth 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 271 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1983

Space station needs, attributes and architectural options study review report

A manned space station (SS) produces a significant net economic benefit over its cost, as well as providing substantial social and performance benefits. The largest space station benefits arise from the ability of the SS to warehouse parts, orbit replacement units (ORUs) and fuel and thereby increase the Space Transportation System (STS) load factor. Substantial other benefits are made possibly by the basing of a returnable orbital transfer vehicles (ROTV) and the servicing of geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) satellites at the SS. It is recommended that a manned space station be placed in a 28.5 degree inclination orbit in 1990. This SS can be designed to grow, to be maintained and to incorporate new technology as it becomes available. It should be augmented with unmanned space platforms at both 28.5 degree and polar inclinations. These platforms are designed to have very high commonality with the SS resource models.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1999

Chemical Analysis and Water Recovery Testing of Shuttle-Mir Humidity Condensate

Humidity condensate collected and processed in-flight is an important component of a space station drinking water supply. Water recovery systems in general are designed to handle finite concentrations of specific chemical components. Previous analyses of condensate derived from spacecraft and ground sources showed considerable variation in composition. Consequently, an investigation was conducted to collect condensate on the Shuttle while the vehicle was docked to Mir, and return the condensate to Earth for testing. This scenario emulates an early ISS configuration during a Shuttle docking, because the atmospheres intermix during docking and the condensate composition should reflect that. During the STS-89 and STS-91 flights, a total volume of 50 liters of condensate was collected and returned. Inorganic and organic chemical analyses were performed on aliquots of the fluid. Tests using the actual condensate were then conducted with scaled-down elements of the Russian condensate recovery system to determine the quality of water produced. The composition and test results are described, and implications for ISS are discussed.

Mudgett, Paul D.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Man-Made Debris In and From Lunar Orbit

During 1966-1976, as part of the first phase of lunar exploration, 29 manned and robotic missions placed more than 40 objects into lunar orbit. Whereas several vehicles later successfully landed on the Moon and/or returned to Earth, others were either abandoned in orbit or intentionally sent to their destruction on the lunar surface. The former now constitute a small population of lunar orbital debris; the latter, including four Lunar Orbiters and four Lunar Module ascent stages, have contributed to nearly 50 lunar sites of man's refuse. Other lunar satellites are known or suspected of having fallen from orbit. Unlike Earth satellite orbital decays and deorbits, lunar satellites impact the lunar surface unscathed by atmospheric burning or melting. Fragmentations of lunar satellites, which would produce clouds of numerous orbital debris, have not yet been detected. The return to lunar orbit in the 1990's by the Hagoromo, Hiten, Clementine, and Lunar Prospector spacecraft and plans for increased lunar exploration early in the 21st century, raise questions of how best to minimize and to dispose of lunar orbital debris. Some of the lessons learned from more than 40 years of Earth orbit exploitation can be applied to the lunar orbital environment. For the near-term, perhaps the most important of these is postmission passivation. Unique solutions, e.g., lunar equatorial dumps, may also prove attractive. However, as with Earth satellites, debris mitigation measures are most effectively adopted early in the concept and design phase, and prevention is less costly than remediation.

Johnson, Nicholas L.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Arc Jet Testing of Carbon Phenolic for Mars Sample Return and Future NASA Missions

The objective of the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Mission is to return a sample of MArtian soil to Earth. The Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) brings te samples through the atmosphere to the ground.The program aims to: Model aerothermal environment during EEV flight; On the basis of results, select potential TPS materials for EEV forebody; Fabricate TPS materials; Test the materials in the arc jet environment representative of predicted flight environment;Evaluate material performance; Compare results of modeling predictions with test results.

Laub, Bernard↗

NASA NTRS1997

Aerodynamics of Stardust Sample Return Capsule

Successful return of interstellar dust and cometary material by the Stardust Sample Return Capsule requires an accurate description of the Earth entry vehicle's aerodynamics. This description must span the hypersonic-rarefied, hypersonic-continuum, supersonic, transonic, and subsonic flow regimes. Data from numerous sources are compiled to accomplish this objective. These include Direct Simulation Monte Carlo analyses, thermochemical nonequilibrium computational fluid dynamics, transonic computational fluid dynamics, existing wind tunnel data, and new wind tunnel data. Four observations are highlighted: 1) a static instability is revealed in the free-molecular and early transitional-flow regime due to aft location of the vehicle s center-of-gravity, 2) the aerodynamics across the hypersonic regime are compared with the Newtonian flow approximation and a correlation between the accuracy of the Newtonian flow assumption and the sonic line position is noted, 3) the primary effect of shape change due to ablation is shown to be a reduction in drag, and 4) a subsonic dynamic instability is revealed which will necessitate either a change in the vehicle s center-of-gravity location or the use of a stabilizing drogue parachute.

Mitcheltree, R. A.↗

NASA NTRS1998

Evaluation of Some Candidate Propulsion Technologies for Mars Ascent Vehicle

A Mars ascent propulsion system trade study was conducted to determine 1) what propulsion technologies allow a Mars sample return mission to be launched on a Delta III class launch verhicle, and 2) whether more exotic technologies, such as in-situ propellant production, allow major cost savings by enabling the use of a smaller launch vehicle or a direct return from the Martian surface to Earth without the need of a rendezvous in the Martian orbit.

lightweight components↗

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 NTRS2005

Parachute Testing for the NASA X-38 Crew Return Vehicle

NASA's X-38 program was an in-house technology demonstration program to develop a Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) for the International Space Station capable of returning seven crewmembers to Earth when the Space Shuttle was not present at the station. The program, managed out of NASA's Johnson Space Center, was started in 1995 and was cancelled in 2003. Eight flights with a prototype atmospheric vehicle were successfully flown at Edwards Air Force Base, demonstrating the feasibility of a parachute landing system for spacecraft. The intensive testing conducted by the program included testing of large ram-air parafoils. The flight test techniques, instrumentation, and simulation models developed during the parachute test program culminated in the successful demonstration of a guided parafoil system to land a 25,000 Ib spacecraft. The test program utilized parafoils of sizes ranging from 750 to 7500 p. The guidance, navigation, and control system (GN&C) consisted of winches, laser or radar altimeter, global positioning system (GPS), magnetic compass, barometric altimeter, flight computer, and modems for uplink commands and downlink data. The winches were used to steer the parafoil and to perform the dynamic flare maneuver for a soft landing. The laser or radar altimeter was used to initiate the flare. In the event of a GPS failure, the software navigated by dead reckoning using the compass and barometric altimeter data. The GN&C test beds included platforms dropped from cargo aircraft, atmospheric vehicles released from a 8-52, and a Buckeye powered parachute. This paper will describe the test program and significant results.

Stein, Jenny M.↗

NASA NTRS1992

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

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

Source record↗

NASA 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 crew members 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 80individual 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.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRS2006

Trajectory and Aeroheating Environment Development and Sensitivity Analysis for Capsule-shaped Vehicles

Recently, NASA's Exploration Systems Research and Technology Project funded several tasks that endeavored to develop and evaluate various thermal protection systems and high temperature material concepts for potential use on the crew exploration vehicle. In support of these tasks, NASA Langley's Vehicle Analysis Branch generated trajectory information and associated aeroheating environments for more than 60 unique entry cases. Using the Apollo Command Module as the baseline entry system because of its relevance to the favored crew exploration vehicle design, trajectories for a range of lunar and Mars return, direct and aerocapture Earth-entry scenarios were developed. For direct entry, a matrix of cases was created that reflects reasonably expected minimum and maximum values of vehicle ballistic coefficient, inertial velocity at entry interface, and inertial flight path angle at entry interface. For aerocapture, trajectories were generated for a range of values of initial velocity and ballistic coefficient that, when combined with proper initial flight path angles, resulted in achieving a low Earth orbit either by employing a full lift vector up or full lift vector down attitude. For each trajectory generated, aeroheating environments were generated which were intended to bound the thermal protection system requirements for likely crew exploration vehicle concepts. The trades examined clearly pointed to a range of missions / concepts that will require ablative systems as well as a range for which reusable systems may be feasible. In addition, the results clearly indicated those entry conditions and modes suitable for manned flight, considering vehicle deceleration levels experienced during entry. This paper presents an overview of the analysis performed, including the assumptions, methods, and general approach used, as well as a summary of the trajectory and aerothermal environment information that was generated.

Robinson, Jeffrey S.↗

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 NTRS1982

Autonomous oxygen production for a Mars return vehicle

The way in which a chemical processor that uses the Martian atmosphere as its only feedstock, thereby reducing the mass that must be launched from earth, can help to return a surface sample from Mars from a single Space Shuttle launch is described. Richter's (1981) study on both the theoretical and experimental aspects of oxygen separation using yttria-stabilized zirconia membranes is cited. Here, separation is accomplished by applying a voltage across the membrane which results in the selective conduction of oxygen ions from one side to the other. It is noted that by using thermal dissociation of the carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere to produce oxygen (and carbon monoxide), these zirconia electrolytic cells can be employed to separate oxygen from the atmospheric stream. Descriptions are also given of atmospheric filtration, atmospheric compression, and waste heat recovery, and of the oxygen precooler and oxygen compressor.

Ash, R. L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Capability Gaps Assessment and Identification of Critical Technology Elements for Mars Transit Habitat

The Habitation Systems Development Office (HP40) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center supports systems engineering, integration, and project management for next generation space habitats. For in space operations and eventual transport of humans to Mars, NASA will rely on a Mars Transit Habitat (TH). The TH will be designed for an up to 1,200-day Mars mission and will carry all food and supplies needed to support four crew for this duration. In the current concept of operations, Mars TH transfers to near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) following launch and docks at Gateway as a visiting vehicle. While there, the TH will complete system shakedown testing and a series of analog missions which will grow from 3 to 6+ months in duration TH also augments Gateway’s habitation capabilities beyond 60-days. Proposed Gateway-TH missions will far exceed the longest duration cislunar human missions to date. These shakedown missions will also be the first operational readiness tests of Mars TH’s long-duration deep space systems, and of the split crew (two crew on the surface, two crew in space) operations that are vital to the approach for the first human Mars mission. Once shakedown missions are complete, Mars TH departs Gateway to aggregate with the Mars propulsion system in NRHO before onboarding the crew and final supplies in Earth orbit via a co-manifested Orion-logistics module. Orion and the LM return to Earth prior to the now aggregated Deep Space Transport vehicle’s journey to Mars. Development of the Mars TH requires significant technology development and maturation. Each year the agency performs a capability gaps assessment, where gaps developed by subject matter experts (SMEs) in various engineering/science disciplines are linked to architectural elements in formulation and prioritized. A gap captures the difference between the current state-of-the-art and the maturity of the capability that is needed to enable or enhance a mission as it is currently envisioned in the government reference architecture. HP40 conducted a gap analysis for Mars TH which will be summarized in this poster. Gaps classified as enabling (which means the mission cannot achieve success without gap closure) were subsequently used to identify critical technology elements (CTEs) for Mars TH. This identification of CTEs was also informed by an examination of the product breakdown structure for Mars TH and focused conversations with SMEs in specific technology areas. CTEs identified for Mars TH to date include the following (note this is not a comprehensive list – CTEs listed represent those in MSFC’s capability areas): inflatable softgoods for habitation; enhanced CO2 recovery; life support systems with greater levels of reliability and maintainability; autonomous guidance, navigation, command and control; and radiators for the Mars TH application. The habitation systems development team is currently delving deeper into each CTE to assess technology approaches being pursued, their maturity, and the degree of difficulty in maturation to meet projected Mars TH timelines. This poster will summarize work to date on the identification of enabling capability gaps linked to Mars TH and provide insight into the associated CTEs and technology maturation efforts.

technology development↗

NASA NTRS1998

Mars Ascent Vehicle Flight Analysis

The scientific objective of the Mars Surveyor Program 2005 mission is to return Mars rock, soil, and atmospheric samples to Earth for detailed analysis. The present investigation focuses on design of Mars Ascent Vehicle for this mission. Aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, and trajectory design considerations are addressed to assess the ascent configuration, determine aerodynamic stability, characterize thermal protection system requirements, and ascertain the required system mass. Aerodynamic analysis reveals a subsonic static instability with the baseline configuration; however, stability augmentation options are proposed to mitigate this problem. The ascent aerothermodynamic environment is shown to be benign (on the order of the sea-level boiling point of water on Earth). As a result of these low thermal and pressure loads, a lightweight, low rigidity material can be employed as the aftbody aerodynamic shroud. The required nominal MAV lift-off mass is 426 kg for a December 2006 equatorial launch into a 300-km circular orbit with 30-degree inclination. Off-nominal aerodynamic and atmospheric conditions are shown to increase this liftoff mass by approximately 10%. Through performance of these analyses, the Mars Ascent Vehicle is deemed feasible with respect to the current mission mass and size constraints.

Desai, P. N.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) Mission Overview, Science Return, and Future Applications of This Technology

The Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) mission was the culmination of two decades of research and development for Hyper-sonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology. LOFTID was a project overseen by the Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM) program within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The success of the LOFTID mission could enable new NASA missions to Mars, Venus, and most solar-system destinations with atmospheres, as well as cost-effective payload returns to Earth, including in-space manufactured materials and launch vehicle asset recovery. LOFTID, with its unique inflatable heat shield, was the first-of-a-kind orbital reentry flight, and the largest blunt body atmospheric entry of any kind. On November 10, 2022, just over 10 years since the previous flight test of the smaller sub-orbital Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment-3 (IRVE-3) [1], NASA Langley Research Center, with partner United Launch Alliance (ULA), successfully launched and achieved reentry and recovery of the LOFTID Reentry Vehicle (RV), further demonstrating the viability of the HIAD technology for large-diameter, inflatable heat shields to safely and accurately deliver large payloads through an atmosphere via a controlled descent and landing. Launching as a secondary payload with the Joint Polar Satellite System 2 (JPSS-2) from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, stowed inside an ex-tended payload adapter of the Atlas V 401 launch vehicle, the LOFTID mission officially began after the JPSS-2 payload was delivered to its orbit by the Centaur second stage. The LOFTID RV was flying solo on its spin-stabilized ballistic reentry trajectory about one hour after launch, and the flight ended approximately one hour later with a gentle splashdown under parachute in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Hawaii, where the RV was recovered and later shipped back to NASA Langley. LOFTID endured the harsh environments of atmospheric reentry while demonstrating stable aerodynamics through the entire spectrum of hypersonic, supersonic, transonic, and subsonic flight. The LOFTID RV was exposed to an aeroheating environment representative of many Mars and LEO HIAD applications, while successfully demonstrating the ability of the heat-affected inflatable structure to with-stand aerodynamic forces that exceeded those expected at Mars. This flight demonstration of a 6m diameter HIAD confirmed the technology structural and thermal performance as it protected the 1100kg RV entering Earth’s atmosphere at 8 km/s, reaching Mach 30, and experiencing 9g deceleration before deploying parachutes and splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. HIAD technology involves an aeroshell that can be hard packed into a small volume for launch and then deployed prior to atmospheric entry for a controlled deceleration through the atmosphere. Large deployable heat shields enable spacecraft to carry bigger, heavier payloads, including scientific instruments and human support systems for planetary landing and exploration. Much larger than traditional fixed diameter aeroshells that are constrained by the size of launch vehicle shrouds, inflatable decelerators create more drag and start the deceleration process in the upper reaches of the atmosphere with greater efficiency and stability. LOFTID’s successful demonstration of the HIAD technology has greatly expanded NASA’s options for future planetary missions and opened new commercial opportunities for lower-cost mission pay-load recovery including recovery of launch vehicle assets, or as a delivery system to return cargo from the International Space Station or cislunar space. The developments for some of these applications are al-ready underway. While LOFTID was indeed a first-of-a-kind flight for an inflatable heatshield, the largest blunt-body entry ever, its remarkable performance assured that it will not be the last of its kind.

John DiNonno↗

NASA NTRS2010

Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle for Testing the Crew Exploration Vehicle's Parachute Assembly System

Though getting astronauts safely into orbit and beyond has long been one of NASA?s chief goals, their safe return has always been equally as important. The Crew Exploration Vehicle?s (CEV) Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) is designed to safely return astronauts to Earth on the next-generation manned spacecraft Orion. As one means for validating this system?s requirements and testing its functionality, a test article known as the Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle (PC-DTV) will carry a fully-loaded yet truncated CPAS Parachute Compartment (PC) in a series of drop tests. Two aerodynamic profiles for the PC-DTV currently exist, though both share the same interior structure, and both have an Orion-representative weight of 20,800 lbf. Two extraction methods have been developed as well. The first (Cradle Monorail System 2 - CMS2) uses a sliding rail technique to release the PC-DTV midair, and the second (Modified DTV Sled; MDS) features a much less constrained separation method though slightly more complex. The decision as to which aerodynamic profile and extraction method to use is still not finalized. Additional CFD and stress analysis must be undertaken in order to determine the more desirable options, though at present the "boat tail" profile and the CMS2 extraction method seem to be the favored options in their respective categories. Fabrication of the PC-DTV and the selected extraction sled is set to begin in early October 2010 with an anticipated first drop test in mid-March 2011.

Lubey, Daniel P.↗