Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “planning scheduling architecture”

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.

258 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Langley Research Center Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate Participation in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study

The NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate (SACD) began studying human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) in the year 1999. This included participation in NASA s Decadal Planning Team (DPT), the NASA Exploration Team (NExT), Space Architect studies and Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts (RASC) architecture studies that were used in formulating the new Vision for Space Exploration. In May of 2005, NASA initiated the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). The primary outputs of the ESAS activity were concepts and functional requirements for the Crewed Exploration Vehicle (CEV), its supporting launch vehicle infrastructure and identification of supporting technology requirements and investments. An exploration systems analysis capability has evolved to support these functions in the past and continues to evolve to support anticipated future needs. SACD had significant roles in supporting the ESAS study team. SACD personnel performed the liaison function between the ESAS team and the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team (S/SCOT), an agency-wide team charged with using the Space Shuttle to complete the International Space Station (ISS) by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. The most significant of the identified issues involved the ability of the Space Shuttle system to achieve the desired number of flights in the proposed time frame. SACD with support from the Kennedy Space Center performed analysis showing that, without significant investments in improving the shuttle processing flow, that there was almost no possibility of completing the 28-flight sequence by the end of 2010. SACD performed numerous Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) trades to define top level element requirements and establish architecture propellant needs. Configuration trades were conducted to determine the impact of varying degrees of segmentation of the living capabilities of the combined descent stage, ascent stage, and other elements. The technology assessment process was developed and implemented by SACD as the ESAS architecture was refined. SACD implemented a rigorous and objective process which included (a) establishing architectural functional needs, (b) collection, synthesis and mapping of technology data, and (c) performing an objective decision analysis resulting in technology development investment recommendations. The investment recommendation provided budget, schedule, and center/program allocations to develop required technologies for the exploration architecture, as well as the identification of other investment opportunities to maximize performance and flexibility while minimizing cost and risk. A summary of the trades performed and methods utilized by SACD for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESAS) activity is presented along with how SACD is currently supporting the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration.

Keyes, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2007

Human Space Exploration: The Moon, Mars, and Beyond

America is returning to the Moon in preparation for the first human footprint on Mars, guided by the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration. This presentation will discuss NASA's mission, the reasons for returning to the Moon and going to Mars, and how NASA will accomplish that mission in ways that promote leadership in space and economic expansion on the new frontier. The primary goals of the Vision for Space Exploration are to finish the International Space Station, retire the Space Shuttle, and build the new spacecraft needed, to return people to the Moon and go to Mars. The Vision commits NASA and the nation to an agenda of exploration that also includes robotic exploration and technology development, while building on lessons learned over 50 years of hard-won experience. Why the Moon? Many questions about the Moon's potential resources and how its history is linked to that of Earth were spurred by the brief Apollo explorations of the 1960s and 1970s. This new venture will carry more explorers to more diverse landing sites with more capable tools and equipment for extended expeditions. The Moon also will serve as a training ground before embarking on the longer, more difficult trip to Mars. NASA plans to build a lunar outpost at one of the lunar poles, learn to live off the land, and reduce dePendence on Earth for longer missions. America needs to extend its ability to survive in hostile environments close to our home planet before astronauts will reach Mars, a planet very much like Earth. NASA has worked with scientists to define lunar exploration goals and is addressing the opportunities for a range of scientific study on Mars. In order to reach the Moon and Mars within a lifetime and within budget, NASA is building on common hardware, shared knowledge, and unique experience derived from the Apollo Saturn, Space Shuttle and contemporary commercial launch vehicle programs. The journeys to the Moon and Mars will require a variety of vehicles, including the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, which transports the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, which transports the Lunar Surface Access Module. The architecture for the lunar missions will use one launch to ferry the crew into orbit, where it will rendezvous with the Lunar Module in the Earth Departure Stage, which will then propel the combination into lunar orbit. The imperative to explore space with the combination of astronauts and robots will be the impetus for inventions such as solar power and water and waste recycling. This next chapter in NASA's history promises to write the next chapter in American history, as well. It will require this nation to provide the talent to develop tools, machines, materials, processes, technologies, and capabilities that can benefit nearly all aspects of life on Earth. Roles and responsibilities are shared between a nationwide Government and industry team. The Exploration Launch Projects Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center manages the design, development, testing, and evaluation of both vehicles and serves as lead systems integrator. A little over a year after it was chartered, the Exploration Launch Projects team is testing engine components, refining vehicle designs, performing wind tunnel tests, and building hardware for the first flight test of Ares I-l, scheduled for spring 2009. The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration lays out a roadmap for a long-term venture of discovery. This endeavor will inspire and attract the best and brightest students to power this nation successfully to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. If one equates the value proposition for space with simple dollars and cents, the potential of the new space economy is tremendous, from orbital space delivery services for the International Space Station to mining and solar energy collection on the Moon and asteroids. The Vision for Space Exploration is fundamentally about bringing the resources of the solar system within the economic sphere of humaind. Given the immense size of our solar system, the amount of available material and energy within it present an enormous economic opportunity.

Sexton, Jeffrey D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Orion GNC Mitigation Efforts for Van Allen Radiation

The Orion Crew Module (CM) is NASA's next generation manned space vehicle, scheduled to return humans to lunar orbit in the coming decade. The Orion avionics and GN&C architectures have progressed through a number of project phases and are nearing completion of a major milestone. The first unmanned test mission, dubbed "Exploration Flight Test One" (EFT-1) is scheduled to launch from NASA Kennedy Space Center late next year and provides the first integrated test of all the vehicle systems, avionics and software. The EFT-1 mission will be an unmanned test flight that includes a high speed re-entry from an elliptical orbit, which will be launched on an expendable launch vehicle (ELV). The ELV will place CM and the ELV upper stage into a low Earth orbit (LEO) for one revolution. After the first LEO, the ELV upper stage will re-ignite and place the combined upper stage/CM into an elliptical orbit whose perigee results in a high energy entry to test CM response in a relatively high velocity, high heating environment. While not producing entry velocities as high as those experienced in returning from a lunar orbit, the trajectory was chosen to provide higher stresses on the thermal protection and guided entry systems, as compared against a lower energy LEO entry. However the required entry geometry with constraints on inclination and landing site result in a trajectory that lingers for many hours in the Van Allen radiation belts. This exposes the vehicle and avionics to much higher levels of high energy proton radiation than a typical LEO or lunar trajectory would encounter. As a result, Van Allen radiation poses a significant risk to the Orion avionics system, and particularly the Flight Control Module (FCM) computers that house the GN&C flight software. The measures taken by the Orion GN&C, Flight Software and Avionics teams to mitigate the risks associated with the Van Allen radiation on EFT-1 are covered in the paper. Background on the Orion avionics subsystem is provided, as well as an overview of the GN&C software architecture. The measures taken to handle radiation induced failure of the one or both of the FCM's are presented, and finally simulation and actual hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) results are shown confirming the validity of the implementation. The paper presents an overview of the Orion avionics architecture describing the GNC sensors, onboard data network as well as the flight control computers and their planned restart capabilities. GN&C sensors include two Orion Inertial Measurement Units (OIMU's), a Vision Processing Unit (VPU) to process camera images, three barometric altimeters and a single GPS receiver. All of the sensors communicate to one of two Power and Data Units (PDU's). The PDU's multiplex analog and serial data from the sensors and write the data to the Orion Data Network (ODN). The OIMU s write measurement messages directly as onto the ODN, but they are routed through PDU network switches.

King, Ellis T.↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Human Spaceflight Scenarios - Do All Our Models Still Say No?

Historically, NASA human spaceflight planning has included healthy doses of life cycle cost analysis. Planners put projects and their cost estimates in a budget context. Estimated costs became expected budgets. Regardless, real budgets rarely matched expectations. So plans would come and go as NASA canceled projects. New projects would arise and the cycle would begin again. Repeatedly, NASA schedule and performance ambitions come up against costs growing at double-digit rates while budgets barely rise a couple of percent a year. Significant skepticism greets proposed NASA programs at birth, as cost estimates for new projects are traditionally very high, and worse, far off the mark for those carried forward. In this environment the current "capability driven framework" for NASA human spaceflight evolved, where long term life cycle cost analysis are even viewed as possibly counter-productive. Here, a space exploration project, for example the Space Launch System, focuses on immediate goals. A life cycle is that of a project, not a program, and for only that span of time to a near term milestone like a first test launch. Unfortunately, attempting to avoid some pitfalls in long-term life cycle cost analysis breeds others. Government audits have noted that limiting the scope of cost analysis "does not provide the transparency necessary to assess long-term affordability" making it difficult to understand if NASA "is progressing in a cost-effective and affordable manner." Even in this short-term framework, NASA realizes the importance of long-term considerations, that it must "maximize the efficiency and sustainability of the Exploration Systems development programs", that this is "critical to free resources for re-investment...such as other required deep space exploration capabilities." Assuming the value of long-term life cycle cost analysis, where due diligence meets reconnaissance, and accepting past shortcomings, the work here approaches life cycle cost analysis for human spaceflight differently. 1) If costs have traditionally been so high that adding them up is discouraging, are there any new facts on the ground offering paths to significantly lower costs? 2) If NASA's spaceflight budget and process is an over-arching constraint, with its planning limitations favoring short-term outlooks, is there a way to step outside the budget box? 3) If life cycle answers have historically been too uncertain to be useful, is there a process where stakeholders gain valuable insights merely from emphasizing a common understanding around questions? We analyze the potential life cycle cost of assorted NASA human spaceflight architectures - an architecture as a sum of individual systems, working together. With the prior questions of high costs, limited budgets and uncertainties in mind, public private partnerships are central in these architectures. The cost data for current commercial public private partnerships is encouraging, as are cost estimates for future partnership approaches beyond low Earth orbit. Private capital, directly or indirectly, an ingredient of public private partnerships, may be a significant factor in finding a path around the limits of the NASA spaceflight budget. Also, understanding and reviewing the pros, cons and uncertainties of assorted architectures can assist in developing a common understanding around key questions as important if not more so than the numbers and answers. Lastly, a scenario planning technique is briefly explored that can mature a common understanding about the agencies situation at hand and how diverse stakeholders can go forward together. Scenario planning, rather than focusing on answers, places emphasis on stakeholders developing a common understanding about the future. Putting aside costs, this is especially true of questions about sustainability and growth, results, benefits and expectations. While efficiency exercises or analysis look to reduce resources in one place to apply them elsewhere, moving around slices in a pie, scenario planning can get at the heart of the matter, growing the pie, transforming it, and making the pieces relevant. Especially important is the question of sustainability for different scenarios in the broad sense of the word - not just the narrow ability to survive or continue, but also the ability to adapt, prosper and grow.

space systems life cycle costs↗
NASA NTRS2015

SOAREX-8 Suborbital Experiments 2015 - A New Paradigm for Small Spacecraft Communication

In 2015 NASA plans to launch a payload to 280 Km altitude on a sounding rocket from the Wallops Flight Facility. This payload will contain several novel technologies that work together to demonstrate methodologies for space sample return missions and for nanosatellite communications in general. The payload will deploy and test an Exo-Brake, which slows the payload aerodynamically, providing eventual de-orbit and recovery of future ISS samples through a Small Payload Quick Return project. In addition, this flight addresses future Mars mission entry technology, space-to-space communications using the Iridium Short Messaging Service (SMS), GPS tracking, and wireless sensors using the ZigBee protocol. SOAREX-8 is being assembled and tested at Ames Research Center (ARC) and the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is funding sensor and communications work. Open source Arduino technology and software are used for system control. The ZigBee modules used are XBee units that connect analog sensors for temperature, air pressure and acceleration measurement wirelessly to the payload telemetry system. Our team is developing methods for power distribution and module mounting, along with software for sensor integration, data assembly and downlink. We have demonstrated relaying telemetry to the ground using the Iridium satellite constellation on a previous flight, but the upcoming flight will be the first time we integrate useful flight test data from a ZigBee wireless sensor network. Wireless sensor data will measure the aerodynamic efficacy of the Exo-Brake permitting further on orbit flight tests of improved designs. The Exo-Brake is 5 sq m in area and will be stored in a container and deployed during ascent once the payload is jettisoned from the launch vehicle. We intend to further refine the hardware and continue testing on balloon launches, future sounding rocket flights and on nanosatellite missions. The use of standards-based and open source hardware/software has allowed for this project to be completed with a very modest budget and a challenging schedule. There is a wealth of hardware and software available for both the Arduino platform and the XBee, all low-cost or open-source. Along with the Exo-Brake hardware and deployment discussion, this paper will describe in detail the system architecture emphasizing the successful use of open source hardware and software to minimize effort and cost. Testing procedures, radio frequency interference (RFI) mitigation, success criteria and expected results will also be discussed. The use of Iridium short messaging capability for space-to-space links, standards-based wireless sensor networks, and other innovative communications technology are also presented.

aerobrake↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗