SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Trade Space”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Using Systems Engineering to Develop an Integrated Crew Health and Performance System to Mitigate Risk for Human Exploration Missions

New space exploration missions are currently being designed to take humanity beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) to cis-lunar space, the lunar surface, and eventually to Mars. These missions carry increased risks due to a number of factors, including distance from Earth, exposure to deep space hazards, reduced capacity and ability to resupply and evacuate, and increased communication delays. As distance from Earth grows and mission length increases, a growing proportion of mission risk can be attributed to the “human system.” Almost twenty years ago, the Institute of Medicine in the United States recommended the early and complete integration of the human system into the spacecraft and mission design process to mitigate this increased risk inherent in exploration missions. Exploration missions will require increasing levels of crew self-sufficiency that will challenge the current operational paradigms established in LEO. Enabling progressive Earth independence requires management of the increasingly complex interactions among spacecraft systems and integration of all the data and functions that affect human health and performance into one coordinated system –the Crew Health and Performance (CHP) system. This system is a critical spacecraft system that is analogous to other systems such as propulsion, guidance and navigation, or avionics. Design and integration of the CHP system requires the evidence-based merger of typically disparate disciplines such as medicine, human factors, and life support system design, using systems engineering (SE) practices. SE provides traceability of spacecraft requirements and enables reliable and repeatable trade space analysis of the many competing options for hardware and software to be included in the mission architecture. The approach described here enables spacecraft and mission designers to align the scope of a CHP system with mission specific requirements, decrease risk to the crew, and increase the probability of mission success.

Kerry McGuire↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Risk Model (PRisM) Proof-of-Concept: An Operational Decision Support Tool to Predict Crew Performance in Space from Available Performance Tests

The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center has developed a range of tools to evaluate astronaut health during spaceflight and to optimize the medical set required for missions. Among these, the Performance Risk Model (PRisM) represents a novel advancement, extending CHP-PRA’s focus beyond medical systems into the domain of human performance. Such tool could be pivotal in optimizing astronaut capabilities during space travel, thereby enhancing overall mission success. PRisM leverages data from well-established performance assessments conducted during previous crewed space missions and Earth analogs to strategically predict outcomes for planned tasks, even when direct performance testing has not been conducted for those specific tasks. To evaluate performance, PRisM references the various metrics outlined in NASA-STD-3001 and employs a methodology to integrate different performance scales. This framework analyzes the contribution of various human system task categories (HSTCs) to task execution and compares these contributions to the HSTCs’ involvement in other known tests. The model further employs a Monte Carlo simulation to sample performance scores from their distribution in operationally relevant tests such as those in Mulavara et al. (2018) and, by leveraging similarities in HSTC involvement, transfers this knowledge to actual mission tasks, such as those outlined in the "Human Exploration of Mars: Preliminary List of Crew Tasks”. The current PRisM proof-of-concept includes analyses of the impact of exercise and specific medications on astronauts’ performance, with provisions to incorporate additional countermeasures as data becomes available. Furthermore, the tool is customizable to include any system necessary to fully encompass the domain of human systems and can be adapted to evaluate performance for any spaceflight activities as requested by operational stakeholders. PRisM has the potential to assist the Human Research Program in exploring the capabilities trade space for optimized crew performance.

performance modeling↗

NASA NTRS2014

Extravehicular Activity Asteroid Exploration and Sample Collection Capability

NASA's Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) is challenged with primary mission objectives of demonstrating deep space Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and tools, and obtaining asteroid samples to return to Earth for further study. Although the Modified Advanced Crew Escape Suit (MACES) is used for the EVAs, it has limited mobility which increases fatigue and decreases the crews' capability to perform EVA tasks. Furthermore, previous Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) spacewalks have benefited from EVA interfaces which have been designed and manufactured on Earth. Rigid structurally mounted handrails, and tools with customized interfaces and restraints optimize EVA performance. For ARCM, some vehicle interfaces and tools can leverage heritage designs and experience. However, when the crew ventures onto an asteroid capture bag to explore the asteroid and collect rock samples, EVA complexity increases due to the uncertainty of the asteroid properties. The variability of rock size, shape and composition, as well as bunching of the fabric bag will complicate EVA translation, tool restraint and body stabilization. The unknown asteroid hardness and brittleness will complicate tool use. The rock surface will introduce added safety concerns for cut gloves and debris control. Feasible solutions to meet ARCM EVA objectives were identified using experience gained during Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS EVAs, terrestrial mountaineering practices, NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 16 mission, and during Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory testing in the MACES suit. The proposed concept utilizes expandable booms and integrated features of the asteroid capture bag to position and restrain the crew at the asteroid worksite. These methods enable the capability to perform both finesse, and high load tasks necessary to collect samples for scientific characterization of the asteroid. This paper will explore the design trade space and options that were examined for EVA, the overall concept for the EVAs including translation paths and body restraint methods, potential tools used to extract the samples, design implications for the Asteroid Redirect Vehicle (ARV) for EVA, the results of early development testing of potential EVA tasks, and extensibility of the EVA architecture to NASA's exploration missions.

Scoville, Zebulon↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Automated Medical Inventory System (AMIS) to Enable Earth-Independent Medical Operations

BACKGROUND: Inventory of medical consumables and durables (medications, treatment aids, diagnostic equipment, etc.) aboard the International Space Station is a manual process whereby crewmembers reach out to their flight surgeon to relay when items are used. Performing a full medical system inventory is time intensive. However, as exploration progresses to long duration missions with little to no resupply or evacuation capabilities, maintaining an accurate account of inventory and location for medical systems across the mission will become increasingly critical. A new system must be developed for future exploration missions to meet the need for a crew-facing, real time method of managing medical inventory. OVERVIEW: NASA’s Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) is funding the AMIS project to mature the technology readiness level and to conduct a flight demonstration of a medical inventory capability. AMIS will leverage lessons learned from a Medical Consumables Tracking project previously demonstrated aboard the ISS in 2016 and 2017. Key components of AMIS include a database, supporting hardware and software, and interfaces to power, communications, or other vehicle or medical systems. Some medical inventory capability may be provided by the vehicle inventory management system which relies upon RFID-based technology and can track larger items such as medical kits or medical hardware. AMIS will augment these capabilities to enable tracking of individual medical kit contents. Efforts are underway to characterize the optimal solution trade space by comparing system specifications (e.g. mass and volume, etc.) across maintenance and operational use cases (e.g. crew time saved, total inventory automated, etc). DISCUSSION: The contents of a Mars Medical System have not been fully defined which poses challenges to defining an inventory system and requires assumptions regarding medical kit contents and medical system design. Other important considerations include minimizing crew time required, avoiding access restrictions to medical inventory in the event of an emergency, and ensuring that data is accessible to other medical system elements to enable crew autonomy in provision of medical care.

Automated Medical Inventory System↗

NASA NTRS2010

Reconciling Scientific Aspirations and Engineering Constraints for a Lunar Mission via Hyperdimensional Interpolation

Virtually every NASA space-exploration mission represents a compromise between the interests of two expert, dedicated, but very different communities: scientists, who want to go quickly to the places that interest them most and spend as much time there as possible conducting sophisticated experiments, and the engineers and designers charged with maximizing the probability that a given mission will be successful and cost-effective. Recent work at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) seeks to enhance communication between these two groups, and to help them reconcile their interests, by developing advanced modeling capabilities with which they can analyze the achievement of science goals and objectives against engineering design and operational constraints. The analyses conducted prior to this study have been point-design driven. Each analysis has been of one hypothetical case which addresses the question: Given a set of constraints, how much science can be done? But the constraints imposed by the architecture team-e.g., rover speed, time allowed for extravehicular activity (EVA), number of sites at which science experiments are to be conducted- are all in early development and carry a great deal of uncertainty. Variations can be incorporated into the analysis, and indeed that has been done in sensitivity studies designed to see which constraint variations have the greatest impact on results. But if a very large number of variations can be analyzed all at once, producing a table that includes virtually the entire trade space under consideration, then we have a tool that enables scientists and mission architects to ask the inverse question: For a given desired level of science (or any other objective), what is the range of constraints that would be needed? With this tool, mission architects could determine, for example, what combinations of rover speed, EVA duration, and other constraints produce the desired results. Further, this tool would help them identify which technology-improvement investments would be likely to produce the largest or most important return. However, the number of variations that need to be considered for such analysis quickly balloons to an unwieldy size. If three variations are considered for each of six constraints-a very modest example-there are a total of 243 variations to consider. If it takes 40 minutes to compute each variation, as it does with HURON, our automated optimization system, then it would take 162 hours or nearly 7 days of round-the-clock computing to calculate the results. Adding further constraints or variations exponentially increases the amount of time that is needed.

Weisbin, Charles R.↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reusable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

This paper presents the results of a 2012 life cycle cost (LCC) study of hybrid Reusable Booster Systems (RBS) conducted by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The work included the creation of a new cost estimating model and an LCC analysis, building on past work where applicable, but emphasizing the integration of new approaches in life cycle cost estimation. Specifically, the inclusion of industry processes/practices and indirect costs were a new and significant part of the analysis. The focus of LCC estimation has traditionally been from the perspective of technology, design characteristics, and related factors such as reliability. Technology has informed the cost related support to decision makers interested in risk and budget insight. This traditional emphasis on technology occurs even though it is well established that complex aerospace systems costs are mostly about indirect costs, with likely only partial influence in these indirect costs being due to the more visible technology products. Organizational considerations, processes/practices, and indirect costs are traditionally derived ("wrapped") only by relationship to tangible product characteristics. This traditional approach works well as long as it is understood that no significant changes, and by relation no significant improvements, are being pursued in the area of either the government acquisition or industry?s indirect costs. In this sense then, most launch systems cost models ignore most costs. The alternative was implemented in this LCC study, whereby the approach considered technology and process/practices in balance, with as much detail for one as the other. This RBS LCC study has avoided point-designs, for now, instead emphasizing exploring the trade-space of potential technology advances joined with potential process/practice advances. Given the range of decisions, and all their combinations, it was necessary to create a model of the original model and use genetic algorithms to explore results. A strong business case occurs when viable paths are identified for an affordable up-front investment, and these paths can credibly achieve affordable, responsive operations, characterized by smaller direct touch labor efforts at the wing level from flight to flight. The results supporting this approach, its potential, and its conclusions are presented here.

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reuseable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Evidence for Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding the kinds of evidence available and using the best evidence to answer a question is critical to evidenced-based decision-making, and it requires synthesis of evidence from a variety of sources. Categorization of human system risks in spaceflight, in particular, focuses on how well the integration and interpretation of all available evidence informs the risk statement that describes the relationship between spaceflight hazards and an outcome of interest. A mature understanding and categorization of these risks requires: 1) sufficient characterization of risk, 2) sufficient knowledge to determine an acceptable level of risk (i.e., a standard), 3) development of mitigations to meet the acceptable level of risk, and 4) identification of factors affecting generalizability of the evidence to different design reference missions. In the medical research community, evidence is often ranked by increasing confidence in findings gleaned from observational and experimental research (e.g., "levels of evidence"). However, an approach based solely on aspects of experimental design is problematic in assessing human system risks for spaceflight. For spaceflight, the unique challenges and opportunities include: (1) The independent variables in most evidence are the hazards of spaceflight, such as space radiation or low gravity, which cannot be entirely duplicated in terrestrial (Earth-based) analogs, (2) Evidence is drawn from multiple sources including medical and mission operations, Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH), spaceflight research (LSDA), and relevant environmental & terrestrial databases, (3) Risk metrics based primarily on LSAH data are typically derived from available prevalence or incidence data, which may limit rigorous interpretation, (4) The timeframe for obtaining adequate spaceflight sample size (n) is very long, given the small population, (5) Randomized controlled trials are unattainable in spaceflight, (6) Collection of personal and environmental data on the astronaut population may create opportunities for advanced analytics and human-environment modeling that goes beyond that achieved in isolated experimental designs; and (7) Translation of relevant research to operations is a complex, transdisciplinary enterprise in which the approach must apply across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The approach to synthesizing evidence must address both source and fidelity of data, and reflect the most general attributes of quality of evidence in science and engineering: reliability and validity. The authors are developing a two-factor approach which includes the various kinds of evidence required to understand risks and for the integrated interpretation of all evidence that is essential to develop standards and countermeasures. A unified framework for aggregating and assessing different kinds of evidence provides a consistent, traceable, evidence-based decision-making process to translate research to operations in an environment where engineers, scientists, physicians, and managers all engage in analyzing the trade space of vehicle design, standards, requirements and solutions for spaceflight.

Steinberg, S. L.↗

NASA NTRS1995

Planetary and deep space requirements for photovoltaic solar arrays

In the past 25 years, the majority of interplanetary spacecraft have been powered by nuclear sources. However, as the emphasis on smaller, low cost missions gains momentum, the majority of missions now being planned will use photovoltaic solar arrays. This will present challenges to the solar array builders, inasmuch as planetary requirements usually differ from earth orbital requirements. In addition, these requirements often differ greatly, depending on the specific mission; for example, inner planets vs. outer planets, orbiters vs. flybys, spacecraft vs. landers, and so on. Also, the likelihood of electric propulsion missions will influence the requirements placed on solar array developers. The paper will discuss representative requirements for a range of planetary missions now in the planning stages. Insofar as inner planets are concerned, a Mercury orbiter is being studied with many special requirements. Solar arrays would be exposed to high temperatures and a potentially high radiation environment, and will need to be increasingly pointed off sun as the vehicle approaches Mercury. Identification and development of cell materials and arrays at high incidence angles will be critical to the design. Missions to the outer solar system that have been studied include a Galilean orbiter and a flight to the Kuiper belt. While onboard power requirements would be small (as low as 10 watts), the solar intensity will require relatively large array areas. As a result, such missions will demand extremely compact packaging and low mass structures to conform to launch vehicle constraints. In turn, the large are, low mass designs will impact allowable spacecraft loads. Inflatable array structures, with and without concentration, and multiband gap cells will be considered if available. In general, the highest efficiency cell technologies operable under low intensity, low temperature conditions are needed. Solar arrays will power missions requiring as little as approximately 100 watts, up to several kilowatts (at Earth) in the case of solar electric propulsion missions. Thus, mass and stowage volume minimization will be required over a range of array sizes. Concentrator designs, inflatable structures, and the combination of solar arrays with the telecommunications system have been proposed. Performance, launch vehicle constraints, an cost will be the principal parameters in the design trade space. Other special applications will also be discussed, including requirements relating to planetary landers and probes. In those cases, issues relating to shock loads on landing, operability in (possibly dusty) atmospheres, and extreme temperature cycles must be considered, in addition to performance, stowed volume, and costs.

Bankston, C. P.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Effects of the 8 psia / 32% O2 Atmosphere on the Human in the Spaceflight Environment

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. There are elements of exploration that may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but there are critical elements of exploration that will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA intensive phases of missions. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This paper provides a literature review of the human health and performance risks associated with the 8 psia/32% O2 environment. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasures protocols, effective food preparation at 8 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. As a first effort, the trade space originally considered in the EAWG was re-evaluated looking for ways to decrease the hypoxic dose by further enriching the O2% or increasing the pressure. After discussion with the NASA engineering and materials community, it was determined that the O2 could be enriched from 32% to 34% and the pressure increased from 8.0 to 8.2 psia without significant penalty. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. Once decided, the proposed internal environment, if different than current experience, should be evaluated through appropriately simulated research studies. In many cases, the human physiologic concerns can be investigated effectively through integrated multi-discipline ground-based studies. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Environmental control↗

NASA NTRS2022

The Cooling Loop A Anomaly of 2013: A Case Study in Human-Systems Resilience

Throughout the history of human spaceflight, NASA has employed an operational paradigm of 24/7 dependence on experts in Mission Control Center (MCC). In addition to nominal flight control and mission operations, these 85+ experts per shift manage anomaly detection, diagnosis, and response, and support the crew in real-time in performing maintenance and repair, procedure execution, and other complex mission operations. Future long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) will not operate successfully using this same Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) where crew rely on ground controllers, have ready access to resupply, and have a fallback plan of evacuation. As distance from Earth increases and the communication delay grows, crews will need to respond independently and adequately to time-critical vehicle malfunctions. It will not always be sufficient or even possible to ‘safe the system’ and then wait upon ground intervention. A new and radically different HSIA is needed to accommodate the paradigm shift of deep-space travel. Historical International Space Station (ISS) data show that for a 30-day mission, the likelihood of a high-consequence vehicle anomaly of uncertain origin that requires rapid response is greater than 10%. The likelihood of such an event is 50% by the fourth month of the mission, and it grows exponentially with time. Our team has conducted in-depth investigations into these events and their corresponding anomaly resolution activities. Using MCC and Mission Evaluation Room (MER) anomaly resolution artifacts (including meeting summaries, caution and warning data, and ISS daily summaries), we created timelines detailing ground actions and in-orbit events for two significant anomalies. We then mapped these timelines onto Mars transit conditions, introducing a ground-crew communications time delay and shifting immediate response, time-critical task execution, and vehicle commanding to the crew. In detailing successful anomaly resolution in transit to Mars, the timelines highlight where effective resolution requires drastically evolved onboard capabilities. Though this research has yielded a rich data set based on ground response in past missions, there is still insufficient knowledge to assess the potential impact of inflight anomalies on a small autonomous crew on future LDEMs beyond LEO. To begin building an evidence base that will inform future HSIA standards and requirements, we are developing an approach to systematically capture crew anomaly response and procedure execution during early Artemis missions. Being the first human spaceflight beyond LEO since Apollo, early Artemis missions provide a rare and unique opportunity to serve as a testbed for Mars missions. Our work aims to capitalize on planned data collection to derive crew operational responses to anomalous events in real-time. Our team is also researching the level of simulation fidelity required for empirically validating proposed HSIA standards and evaluating HSIA implementations for LDEMs beyond LEO. This work will produce a trade space study of HSIA simulation objectives and fidelity requirements. Ultimately, these research efforts will assist in developing the standards and technologies needed to build a next-generation HSIA for LDEMs beyond LEO.

human-systems integration architecture↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: New Launch Capability for Artemis Lunar and Deep Space Science Missions

With stacking and integration of the initial Block 1 Space Launch System (SLS) expected to begin in 2020, NASA’s powerful new launch vehicle is ready to take center stage in the agency’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon. Combining the highest launch thrust and largest payload capacity ever developed, SLS also enables a new generation of high-C3 science missions to destinations such as the gas and ice giants, the Kuiper Belt, and even beyond the solar system. Block 1 is only the beginning, as the vehicle has a planned evolution path to progressively more powerful variants. In addition to these block upgrades providing increased lift capability, the vehicle can be configured to fly in crew configuration with the Orion spacecraft or in cargo configuration with payload fairings for launching science mission or large infrastructure, providing a flexible launch option. For Artemis I, the first SLS flight, the Block 1 vehicle in the crew configuration will send an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to lunar orbit for a thorough systems checkout before the crewed Artemis II flight. The Block 1 vehicle uses a proven propulsion system consisting of solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines to lift more than 27 metric tons [t] to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In its cargo configuration, Block 1 can be fitted with a 5 m payload fairing. The second variant, Block 1B, uses a more powerful upper stage to increase payload mass to TLI to 38-42 t, depending on crew or cargo configuration. In the crew configuration, a co-manifested payload of up to 10 t can ride along in the Universal Stage Adapter (USA), which has as much volume for payloads as a 5 m-class payload fairing. The Block 2 evolved variant will lift 43-46 t to TLI, depending on crew or cargo configuration. The Block 1B and Block 2 vehicles can be outfitted with an 8.4 m-diameter payload fairing, available in 19.1 m and 27.4 m lengths, providing unprecedented volume for payloads. Larger-diameter 10 m fairings may also be an option in the future on the Block 2 vehicle. The unrivalled mass, volume and high-energy launches of SLS can provide significant mission flexibility for payloads and/or additional upper stages to open trade space for a new generation of exploration missions. SLS was designed to meet requirements for launching large-volume infrastructure as outlined in numerous studies of missions to cislunar space or Mars. Mission concept studies from the science community also point toward new possibilities enabled by SLS. Probes with more robust science packages can be sent to the gas giants. Dual spacecraft can be manifested for missions to Uranus and Neptune. Additional third or fourth payload stages can be encapsulated in the payload fairings to achieve missions to the Kuiper Belt or beyond. In addition, the large volume can be used to design and deploy wide-aperture mirrors on future space telescopes and to enable nuclear-thermal propulsion missions. At AIAA Ascend, the SLS Program will provide technical information on vehicle capabilities as well as descriptions of ongoing discussions with mission planners for utilizing the vehicle for an array of deep space missions.

Stephen Creech↗

NASA NTRS2020

Encealdus Orbilander: A Flagship Mission Concept for Astrobiology

"Whether life exists beyond Earth remains a fundamental question driving our exploration of the Solar System. At Saturn’s moon Enceladus, plumes of oceanic material vented into space allow the investigation of the astrobiological potential of an ocean world, hinted at by Cassini, without the necessity of drilling through kilometers of ice crust. The Enceladus Orbilander is a flagship ($2.56B in fiscal year 2025 dollars) mission concept created for the 2023–2033 Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Orbilander takes full advantage of the opportunity provided by Enceladus’ plumes to search for signs of life. A single spacecraft both orbits and lands, capturing samples from four distinct reservoirs offered by the plumes. These samples, both particulate and vapor, are then analyzed by the Life Detection Suite (LDS), a set of five instruments conducting complementary and orthogonal biosignature-seeking measurements. To provide the context that specifically enhances interpretation of LDS measurements, geochemical and geophysical investigations are conducted both in orbit and on the surface. These reveal the physio-chemical state of the ocean and core as well as the processes involved in ejection of plume material and how these affect the ocean material analyzed by the LDS. The Orbilander can be delivered to the Saturn system via several launch vehicle and trajectory options, including a direct trajectory (7-year cruise), a ∆V-EGA trajectory (9-year cruise) and several options using an inner cruise with Venus and Earth flybys (10-year cruise). Upon Saturn Orbit Insertion, a 4-year moon tour pumps down the Orbilander’s orbit to intercept Enceladus. The most optimal arrival times balance the Jupiter flyby opportunities of the late 2030s and solar illumination at the Enceladus high southern latitudes where plume material is most abundant. This mission concept therefore targets project start in 2030. Upon Enceladus Orbit Insertion, the Orbilander begins a 1.5-year-long campaign of landing site reconnaissance, remote sensing science, and collecting sufficient plume sample to run all but one of the LDS measurements. After successful landing, the Orbilander spends 2 years on the surface conducting multiple LDS measurements with all five instruments on actively and passively collected plume material, as well as seismic investigations. The schedule laid out here is well-defined, but the mission also has operational and resource flexibility should additional reconnaissance be needed. As part of the design study, mission and development risks were identified and mitigation strategies proposed. Technologies key to achieving the life detection science objectives include instrumentation matured under programs like COLDTech and ICEE-2, such as aspects of the sampling system and microfluidic devices, as well as well-known techniques like high-resolution and separation-capable mass spectrometers. Autonomous onboard navigation is planned to maintain a halo orbit around Enceladus to enable passive sampling from orbit as well as reconnaissance measurements for use in site selection and landing. Terrain relative navigation is included to ensure safe landing, given that targeted areas may contain landing hazards. Continued development of radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) technology and long-life batteries is essential for this long duration mission. The Enceladus Orbilander represents an optimal point in the trade space of science value versus cost, taking advantage of the extensive knowledge of Enceladus provided by Cassini, how well Enceladus lends itself to a search for life in material from its ocean, and the flexibility afforded by the innovative design developed by the APL team. By taking full advantage of Enceladus’ plumes both in orbit and on the surface, Orbilander represents a robust search for life with complementary and orthogonal biosignatures as well as contextual geophysical and geochemical measurements, determining not only whether Enceladus is inhabited (at levels up to 500,000× scarcer than in Earth’s oceans) but also why. "

Exobiology↗

NASA NTRS2009

Results of the Particulate Contamination Control Trade Study for Space Suit Life Support Development

As the United States plans to return astronauts to the moon and eventually to Mars, designing the most effective, efficient, and robust space suit life support system that will operate successfully in these dusty environments is vital. There is some knowledge of the contaminants and level of infiltration expected from the Lunar and Mars dust, however risk mitigation strategies and filtration designs to prevent contamination within the space suit life support system are still undefined. A trade study was initiated to identify and address these concerns, and to develop new requirements for the Constellation Space Suit Element (CSSE) Portable Life Support System (PLSS). This trade study investigates historical methods of particulate contamination control in space suits and vehicles, and evaluated the possibility of using commercial technologies for this application. In addition, the trade study examined potential filtration designs. This paper summarizes the results of this trade study.

Cognata, Thomas J.↗

NASA NTRS1965

Beyond apollo.

Apollo capabilities extended for future biomedical, technological and operational experiments, trading space maneuvering capability for experiment load-carrying capacity

SPACE EXPLORATION↗

NASA NTRS2001

Unshrouded Centrifugal Turbopump Impeller Design Methodology

Turbopump weight continues to be a dominant parameter in the trade space for reduction of engine weight. Space Shuttle Main Engine weight distribution indicates that the turbomachinery make up approximately 30% of the total engine weight. Weight reduction can be achieved through the reduction of envelope of the turbopump. Reduction in envelope relates to an increase in turbopump speed and an increase in impeller head coefficient. Speed can be increased until suction performance limits are achieved on the pump or due to alternate constraints the turbine or bearings limit speed. Once the speed of the turbopump is set the impeller tip speed sets the minimum head coefficient of the machine. To reduce impeller diameter the head coefficient must be increased. A significant limitation with increasing head coefficient is that the slope of the head-flow characteristic is affected and this can limit engine throttling range. Unshrouded impellers offer a design option for increased turbopump speed without increasing the impeller head coefficient. However, there are several issues with regard to using an unshrouded impeller: there is a pump performance penalty due to the front open face recirculation flow, there is a potential pump axial thrust problem from the unbalanced front open face and the back shroud face, and since test data is very limited for this configuration, there is uncertainty in the magnitude and phase of the rotordynamic forces due to the front impeller passage. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the design of an unshrouded impeller and to examine the hydrodynamic performance, axial thrust, and rotordynamic performance. The design methodology will also be discussed. This work will help provide some guidelines for unshrouded impeller design.

Prueger, George H.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Aerosciences, Aero-Propulsion and Flight Mechanics Technology Development for NASA's Next Generation Launch Technology Program

The Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) program, Vehicle Systems Research and Technology (VSR&T) project is pursuing technology advancements in aerothermodynamics, aeropropulsion and flight mechanics to enable development of future reusable launch vehicle (RLV) systems. The current design trade space includes rocket-propelled, hypersonic airbreathing and hybrid systems in two-stage and single-stage configurations. Aerothermodynamics technologies include experimental and computational databases to evaluate stage separation of two-stage vehicles as well as computational and trajectory simulation tools for this problem. Additionally, advancements in high-fidelity computational tools and measurement techniques are being pursued along with the study of flow physics phenomena, such as boundary-layer transition. Aero-propulsion technology development includes scramjet flowpath development and integration, with a current emphasis on hypervelocity (Mach 10 and above) operation, as well as the study of aero-propulsive interactions and the impact on overall vehicle performance. Flight mechanics technology development is focused on advanced guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) algorithms and adaptive flight control systems for both rocket-propelled and airbreathing vehicles.

Cockrell, Charles E., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Broadband Wavefront Sensing for JWST Fine Phasing

An application of broadband image-based wavefront sensing is considered for JWST fine phasing. The wavefront sensing error is derived as a function of filter bandpass and then applied to determine the appropriate filter specifications for observatory fine-phasing. These specifications are defined by considering an optimization in the trade space consisting of detector integration time vs. filter bandpass subject to wavefront sensing error budget constraints.

Dean, Bruce↗