Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “launch services”

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 NTRS2001

NASA Alternate Access to Station Service Concept

The evolving nature of the NASA space enterprise compels the agency to develop new and innovative space systems concepts. NASA, working with increasingly strained budgets and a declining manpower base, is attempting to transform from operational activities to procurement of commercial services. NASA's current generation reusable launch vehicle, the Shuttle, is in transition from a government owned and operated entity to a commercial venture to reduce the civil servant necessities for that program. NASA foresees its second generation launch vehicles being designed and operated by industry for commercial and government services. The "service" concept is a pioneering effort by NASA. The purpose the "service" is not only to reduce the civil servant overhead but will free up government resources for further research - and enable industry to develop a space business case so that industry can sustain itself beyond government programs. In addition, NASA desires a decreased responsibility thereby decreasing liability. The Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program is implementing NASA's Space Launch Initiative (SLI) to enable industry to develop the launch vehicles of the future. The Alternate Access to Station (AAS) project office within this program is chartered with enabling industry to demonstrate an alternate access capability for the International Space Station (ISS). The project will not accomplish this by traditional government procurement methods, not by integrating the space system within the project office, or by providing the only source of business for the new capability. The project funds will ultimately be used to purchase a service to take re-supply cargo to the ISS, much the same as any business might purchase a service from FedEx to deliver a package to its customer. In the near term, the project will fund risk mitigation efforts for enabling technologies. AAS is in some ways a precursor to the 2nd Generation RLV. By accomplishing ISS resupply with existing technologies, not only will a new category of autonomous vehicles deliver cargo, but a commercial business base will be incubated that will improve the likelihood of commercial convergence with the next generation of RLVs. Traditional paradigms in government management and acquisition philosophy are being challenged in order to bring about the objective of the AAS project. The phased procurement approach is proving to be the most questionable aspect to date. This work addresses the fresh approach AAS is adopting in management and procurement through a study of the AAS history, current solutions, key technologies, procurement complications, and an incremental forward plan leading to the purchase of a service to deliver goods to ISS. Included in this work is a discussion of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 and how it affects government purchase of space launch and space vehicle services. Industry should find these topics pertinent to their current state of business.

Bailey, Michelle D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRS2000

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Annual Report for 1999

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for the calendar year 1999.This was a year of notable achievements and significant frustrations. Both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs were delayed.The Space Shuttle prudently postponed launches after the occurrence of a wiring short during ascent of the STS-93 mission. The ISS construction schedule slipped as a result of the Space Shuttle delays and problems the Russians experienced in readying the Service Module and its launch vehicle. Each of these setbacks was dealt with in a constructive way. The STS-93 short circuit led to detailed wiring inspections and repairs on all four orbiters as well as analysis of other key subsystems for similar types of hidden damage. The ISS launch delays afforded time for further testing, training, development, and contingency planning. The safety consciousness of the NASA and contractor workforces, from hands-on labor to top management, continues high. Nevertheless, workforce issues remain among the most serious safety concerns of the Panel. Cutbacks and reorganizations over the past several years have resulted in problems related to workforce size, critical skills, and the extent of on-the-job experience. These problems have the potential to impact safety as the Space Shuttle launch rate increases to meet the demands of the ISS and its other customers. As with last year's report, these work- force-related issues were considered of sufficient import to place them first in the material that follows. Some of the same issues of concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS arose in a review of the launch vehicle for the Terra mission that the Panel was asked by NASA to undertake. Other areas the Panel was requested to assess included the readiness of the Inertial Upper Stage for the deployment of the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the possible safety impact of electromagnetic effects on the Space Shuttle. The findings and recommendations in this report do not highlight any major, immediate issues that might compromise the safe pursuit of the various NASA programs. They do, however, cover concerns that the Panel believes should be addressed in the interest of maintaining NASA's excellent safety record.The Panel is pleased to note that remedial efforts for some of the findings raised are underway. Given appropriate funding and cooperative efforts among the Administration, the Congress and the various contractors, the Panel is convinced that safety problems can be avoided or solved resulting in lower risk for NASA's human space and aeronautics programs. Section II of this report contains specific findings and recommendations generated by Panel activities during the calendar year 1999. Section III presents more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. A current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff is included as Appendix A. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1998 annual report. It has been augmented this year to include brief explanations of why the Panel classified the NASA response as " open,""continuing," or "closed." Appendix C lists the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1999.

Blomberg, Richard D.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Non-Axisymmetric Inflatable Pressure Structure (NAIPS) Concept that Enables Mass Efficient Packageable Pressure Vessels with Sealable Openings

Achieving minimal launch volume and mass are always important for space missions, especially for deep space manned missions where the costs required to transport mass to the destination are high and volume in the payload shroud is limited. Pressure vessels are used for many purposes in space missions including habitats, airlocks, and tank farms for fuel or processed resources. A lucrative approach to minimize launch volume is to construct the pressure vessels from soft goods so that they can be compactly packaged for launch and then inflated en route or at the final destination. In addition, there is the potential to reduce system mass because the packaged pressure vessels are inherently robust to launch loads and do not need to be modified from their in-service configuration to survive the launch environment. A novel concept is presented herein, in which sealable openings or hatches into the pressure vessels can also be fabricated from soft goods. To accomplish this, the structural shape is designed to have large regions where one principal stress is near zero. The pressure vessel is also required to have an elongated geometry for applications such as airlocks.

Doggett, William R.↗
NASA NTRS1989

The case for the evolution of the Shuttle system

Examining the expendable and reusable space transportation systems currently in use, it appears that the service life of a launch system, with periodic upgrades, can be 30 to 40 years. It is also evident that both reliability and performance increase with flight experience. With a life expectancy of at least 30 years, the Shuttle system is today only in the first third of its potential service life. This paper addresses the issues of why Shuttle evolution is warranted, how the evolutionary process is managed, and how that process can improve system performance and reduce costs. Specific examples of enhancements currently under consideration are presented and discussed in terms of their relationship to the achievement of greater inherent reliability in the Shuttle system.

Cohen, Aaron↗
NASA NTRS1970

Experiment module concepts study. Volume 1: Management summary

The minimum number of standardized (common) module concepts that will satisfy the experiment program for manned space stations at least cost is investigated. The module interfaces with other elements such as the space shuttle, ground stations, and the experiments themselves are defined. The total experiment module program resource and test requirements are also considered. The minimum number of common module concepts that will satisfy the program at least cost is found to be three, plus a propulsion slice and certain experiment-peculiar integration hardware. The experiment modules rely on the space station for operational, maintenance, and logistic support. They are compatible with both expendable and shuttle launch vehicles, and with servicing by shuttle, tug, or directly from the space station. A total experiment module program cost of approximately $2319M under the study assumptions is indicated. This total is made up of $838M for experiment module development and production, $806M for experiment equipment, and $675M for interface hardware, experiment integration, launch and flight operations, and program management and support.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

Multijunction Solar Cell Development and Production at Spectrolab

Development of multijunction space solar cells is much like that for any high technology product. New products face two major pressures from the market: improving performance while maintaining heritage. This duality of purpose is not new and has been represented since ancient times by the Roman god Janus.[1] This deity was typically represented as two faces on a single head: one facing forward and the other to the rear. The image of Janus has been used as symbolism for many combined forces of dual purpose, such as the balance in life between beginnings and endings, or between art and science. For our purposes, Janus represents our design philosophy balance between looking to the future for improvement while simultaneously blending past heritage. In the space photovoltaics industry there are good reasons for both purposes. Looking to the past, a product must have a space flight heritage to gain widespread use. The main reason being that this is an unforgiving business. Spacecraft are expensive to build, launch and operate. Typically once a satellite is launched, in-field service for a power systems problem is near impossible.[2Balanced with this is looking forward. New missions typically require more power than previous programs or attempt new objectives such as a new orbit. And there is always the cost pressure for both the satellite itself as well as the launch costs. Both of which push solar technology to improve power density at a lower cost. The consequence of this balance in a high-risk environment is that space PV develops as a series of infrequent large technology steps or generational changes interspersed with more frequent small technology steps or evolutionary changes. Figure 1 gives a bit of clarification on this point. It depicts the historical progress in space solar cells tracked by efficiency against first launch date for most major products introduced by Spectrolab. The first generation is the Si-based technology reaching a peak values near 15% AM0 (herein denoted for max. power, AM0, 1.353 W/cm2, 28 C). The GaAs single junction device generation supplanted this technology with first flight of GaAs on GaAs substrate in 1982.[3] More recently this generation has been supplanted by the multijunction solar cell GaInP/GaAs/Ge generation. The first launch of a commercial satellite powered by multijunction technology was in 1997 (Hughes HS 601HP) using solar arrays based on Spectrolab s dual junction (DJ) cells. The cells at that time were an impressive 21.5% efficient at beginning-of-life (BOL).[4] Eight years later, the multijunction device has evolved through several versions. The incorporation of an active Ge subcell formed the Triple Junction (TJ) product line at 25.1% efficient, on orbit since November 2001. The evolution of the TJ into the Improved Triple Junction (ITJ) at 26.8% efficient has been on orbit since June of 2002.[5]

Fetzer, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2009

Launch Order, Launch Separation, and Loiter in the Constellation 1 1/2-Launch Solution

The NASA Constellation Program (CxP) is developing a two-element Earth-to-Orbit launch system to enable human exploration of the Moon. The first element, Ares I, is a human-rated system that consists of a first stage based on the Space Shuttle Program's solid rocket booster (SRB) and an upper stage that consists of a four-crew Orion capsule, a service module, and a Launch Escape System. The second element, Ares V, is a Saturn V-plus category launch system that consists of the core stage with a cluster of six RS-68B engines and augmented with two 5.5-segment SRBs, a Saturn-derived J-2X engine powering an Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and the lunar-lander vehicle payload, Altair. Initial plans called for the Ares V to be launched first, followed the next day by the Ares I. After the EDS performs the final portion of ascent and subsequent orbit circularization, the Orion spacecraft then performs a rendezvous and docks with the EDS and its Altair payload. Following checkout, the integrated stack loiters in low Earth orbit (LEO) until the appropriate Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) window opportunity opens, at which time the EDS propels the integrated Orion Altair to the Moon. Successful completion of this 1 1/2-launch solution carries risks related to both the orbital lifetime of the assets and the probability of achieving the launch of the second vehicle within the orbital lifetime of the first. These risks, which are significant in terms of overall system design choices and probability of mission success, dictated a thorough reevaluation of the launch strategy, including the order of vehicle launch and the planned time period between launches. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to select a launch strategy that would result in the greatest possible expected system performance, while accounting for launch risks and the cost of increased orbital lifetime. Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the launch strategies was created to determine the probability of a second launch not occurring in a timely fashion (i.e., before the assets waiting in LEO expire). An overview of the launch strategy evaluation process is presented, along with results of specific cases that were analyzed. A high-level comparison of options is then presented, along with the conclusion derived from the analysis.

Stromgren, Chel↗
NASA NTRS2005

Safety Ellipse Motion with Coarse Sun Angle Optimization

The Hubble Space Telescope Robotic Servicing and De-orbit Mission (HRSDM) was t o be performed by the unmanned Hubble Robotic Vehicle (HRV) consisting of a Deorbit Module (DM), responsible for the ultimate disposal of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) at the end of science operations, and an Ejection Module (EM), responsible for robotically servicing the HST to extend its useful operational lifetime. HRSDM consisted of eight distinct phases, including: launch, pursuit, proximity operations, capture, servicing, EM jettison and disposal, science operations, and deorbit. The scope of this paper is limited to the Proximity Operations phase of HRSDM. It introduces a relative motion strategy useful for Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking (AR&D) or Formation Flying missions where safe circumnavigation trajectories, or close proximity operations (tens or hundreds of meters) are required for extended periods of time. Parameters and algorithms used to model the relative motion of HRV with respect to HST during the Proximity Operations phase of the HRSDM are described. Specifically, the Safety Ellipse (SE) concept, convenient parameters for describing SE motion, and a concept for initializing SE motion around a target vehicle to coarsely optimize sun and relative navigation sensor angles are presented. The effects of solar incidence angle variations on sun angle optimization, and the effects of orbital perturbations and navigation uncertainty on long term SE motion are discussed.

Naasz, Bo↗
NASA NTRS2012

High-Data-Rate Quadrax Cable Microwave Characterization at the NASA Glenn Structural Dynamics Laboratory

An experiment was performed to determine the degradation in the bit-error-rate (BER) in the high-data-rate cables chosen for the Orion Service Module due to extreme launch conditions of vibrations with a magnitude of 60g. The cable type chosen for the Orion Service Module was no. 8 quadrax cable. The increase in electrical noise induced on these no. 8 quadrax cables was measured at the NASA Glenn vibration facility in the Structural Dynamics Laboratory. The intensity of the vibrations was set at 32g, which was the maximum available level at the facility. The cable lengths used during measurements were 1, 4, and 8 m. The noise measurements were done in an analog fashion using a performance network analyzer (PNA) by recording the standard deviation of the transmission scattering parameter S(sub 21) over the frequency range of 100 to 900 MHz. The standard deviation of S(sub 210 was measured before, during, and after the vibration of the cables at the vibration facility. We observed an increase in noise by a factor of 2 to 6. From these measurements we estimated the increase expected in the BER for a cable length of 25 m and concluded that these findings are large enough that the noise increase due to vibration must be taken in to account for the design of the communication system for a BER of 10(exp -8).

Theofylaktos, Onoufrios↗
NASA NTRS1993

On-orbit refueling

During the past decade, both NASA and the DOD have conducted numerous space servicing studies. These studies have shown that fluid resupply of on-orbit spacecraft is feasible and would allow for extended spacecraft utilization. In order to prove that the studies have validity, an on-orbit flight demonstration of automatic fluid resupply is required. To embark on this flight demonstration, the system concepts, operational procedures, and conceptual service and target vehicles must be identified. Hernandez Engineering, Inc. (HEI), under the direction of the Space Servicing System Project Office of the NASA/JSC New Initiatives Office, has conducted a systems engineering and integration study. The study objective was to develop preliminary concepts for a flight demonstration of automatic rendezvous, proximity operations, capture, and fluid transfer utilizing servicer and target vehicles. The results show that a servicer vehicle/target kit can be launched to orbit with an ELV and automatically rendezvous and dock with the explorer platform (EP). The servicer vehicle can then separate from the EP/kit, perform proximity maneuvers, redock with the EP/kit, and perform fluid transfer operations. After the on-orbit flight demonstration is completed, the servicer/kit can be separated from the EP and be deorbited into the Earth's atmosphere.

Moore, James S.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Second AIAA/NASA USAF Symposium on Automation, Robotics and Advanced Computing for the National Space Program

An introduction is given to NASA goals in the development of automation (expert systems) and robotics technologies in the Space Station program. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been identified as a means to lowering ground support costs. Telerobotics will enhance space assembly, servicing and repair capabilities, and will be used for an estimated half of the necessary EVA tasks. The general principles guiding NASA in the design, development, ground-testing, interactions with industry and construction of the Space Station component systems are summarized. The telerobotics program has progressed to a point where a telerobot servicer is a firm component of the first Space Station element launch, to support assembly, maintenance and servicing of the Station. The University of Wisconsin has been selected for the establishment of a Center for the Commercial Development of Space, specializing in space automation and robotics.

Myers, Dale↗
NASA NTRS2012

TRMM Precipitation Application Examples Using Data Services at NASA GES DISC

Data services to support precipitation applications are important for maximizing the NASA TRMM (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission) and the future GPM (Global Precipitation Mission) mission's societal benefits. TRMM Application examples using data services at the NASA GES DISC, including samples from users around the world will be presented in this poster. Precipitation applications often require near-real-time support. The GES DISC provides such support through: 1) Providing near-real-time precipitation products through TOVAS; 2) Maps of current conditions for monitoring precipitation and its anomaly around the world; 3) A user friendly tool (TOVAS) to analyze and visualize near-real-time and historical precipitation products; and 4) The GES DISC Hurricane Portal that provides near-real-time monitoring services for the Atlantic basin. Since the launch of TRMM, the GES DISC has developed data services to support precipitation applications around the world. In addition to the near-real-time services, other services include: 1) User friendly TRMM Online Visualization and Analysis System (TOVAS; URL: http://disc2.nascom.nasa.gov/Giovanni/tovas/); 2) Mirador (http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/), a simplified interface for searching, browsing, and ordering Earth science data at GES DISC. Mirador is designed to be fast and easy to learn; 3) Data via OPeNDAP (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/services/opendap/). The OPeNDAP provides remote access to individual variables within datasets in a form usable by many tools, such as IDV, McIDAS-V, Panoply, Ferret and GrADS; and 4) The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Web Map Service (WMS) (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/services/wxs_ogc.shtml). The WMS is an interface that allows the use of data and enables clients to build customized maps with data coming from a different network.

Liu, Zhong↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Shuttle and ISS Food Systems Management

Russia and the U.S. provide the current International Space Station (ISS) food system. Each country contributes half of the food supply in their respective flight food packaging. All of the packaged flight food is stowed in Russian provided containers, which interface with the Service Module galley. Each country accepts the other's flight worthiness inspections and qualifications. Some of the food for the first ISS crew was launched to ISS inside the Service Module in July of 2000, and STS-106 in September 2000 delivered more food to the ISS. All subsequent food deliveries will be made by Progress, the Russian re-supply vehicle. The U.S. will ship their portion of food to Moscow for loading onto the Progress. Delivery schedules vary, but the goal is to maintain at least a 45-day supply onboard ISS at all times. The shelf life for ISS food must be at least one year, in order to accommodate the long delivery cycle and onboard storage. Preservation techniques utilized in the US food system include dehydration, thermo stabilization, intermediate moisture, and irradiation. Additional fresh fruits and vegetables will be sent with each Progress and Shuttle flights as permitted by volume allotments. There is limited refrigeration available on the Service Module to store fresh fruits and vegetables. Astronauts and cosmonauts eat half U.S. and half Russian food. Menu planning begins 1 year before a planned launch. The flight crews taste food in the U.S. and in Russia and rate the acceptability. A preliminary menu is planned, based on these ratings and the nutritional requirements. The preliminary menu is then evaluated by the crews while training in Russia. Inputs from this evaluation are used to finalize the menu and flight packaging is initiated. Flight food is delivered 6 weeks before launch. The current challenge for the food system is meeting the nutritional requirements, especially no more than 10 mg iron, and 3500 mg sodium. Experience from Shuttle[Mir also indicated insufficient caloric intake for many crewmembers. Additional thermostabilized and irradiated foods have been developed for ISS to improve the ease of preparation and overall acceptability. Dehydrated foods offer limited advantage, since water must be delivered to ISS. An effort is underway to introduce other International Partner's food into the ISS food system. At first this will be one or two selected foods with the potential for more as the program matures. An increase in the variety of available foods would improve the overall acceptability. Additional galley capability will be required when the crew size increases on ISS. Anticipated improvements include freezers, refrigerators and microwave ovens. All of the ISS food development efforts are devoted to improving the food acceptability and subsequent consumption and mission success

Kloeris, Vickie↗
NASA NTRS1972

Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations.

The functions performed by ground personnel and flight crews of Apollo missions are reviewed, covering vehicle systems operation and management, Saturn launch vehicle, command-service and lunar modules, lunar rover, communication relay unit and ground-commanded TV assembly. Details of the flight path, scientific experiments, photographic equipment and crew health monitoring are also discussed in terms of these functions. The coordinated combination of large numbers of experts and data processing equipment on the ground with the crew's capabilities to operate the spacecraft and exercise on-the-spot judgements is viewed as the backbone of the successful fulfillment of Apollo missions.

Wolfer, B. M.↗
NASA NTRS1972

A 10,000-gpm liquid hydrogen transfer system for the Saturn/Apollo program.

Brief description of the design and operation of the liquid hydrogen transfer system used to service the Saturn V launch vehicle. The cryogenic loading of the huge booster begins eight hours before the scheduled liftoff. The first three hours of fueling are spent in cold hydrogen gas conditioning of the fuel tank. The cold hydrogen gas is provided by vaporizing liquid hydrogen from the storage tank and routing the resultant gas through the fill system. Boil-off losses after loading are continuously replaced through control valves which are driven by a computer system. The liquid hydrogen transfer system is made up of a number of subsystems including the 850,000 gal storage tank whose boil-off losses amount to only 200 gal/day, the pressurization system, the burn pond for controlled disposal of hydrogen waste gas, the storage tank fill manifold, and the hazardous gas monitoring system. Some of the subsystems and components are redundant to provide a high degree of reliability.

Wybranowski, E., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Expendable second stage reusable space shuttle booster. Volume 2: Technical summary. Book 3: Booster vehicle modifications and ground systems definition

A definition of the expendable second stage and space shuttle booster separation system is presented. Modifications required on the reusable booster for expendable second stage/payload flight and the ground systems needed to operate the expendable second stage in conjuction with the space shuttle booster are described. The safety, reliability, and quality assurance program is explained. Launch complex operations and services are analyzed.

Source record↗