SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Apollo 17”
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.
Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Gravimeter: A New Moonquake Catalog and Implications of Expanding the Passive Seismic Array
No abstract available
Thermal Moonquake Identification and Localization from Apollo 17's Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment
No abstract available
Evaluating Surface Exposure Timescales Derived From Solar Energetic Particle Track Densities for Grains From Apollo 17 Core Sample 73002
Space weathering causes the surface soils of airless bodies like the Moon to be morphologically, microstructurally, and chemically altered due to micrometeoroid bombardment and solar wind exposure. These processes produce a multitude of microstructural and chemical changes that accumulate on individual soil grains that are continuously exposed on the surface. One characteristic is the formation of solar wind damaged rims on grains which develop from low energy solar wind particles penetrating <100 nm in depth. Also present are solar energetic particle (SEP) tracks, which are nanoscale streaks of irradiation damage in grain interiors formed by heavy, high energy ions (predominantly Fe group nuclei) originating from solar energetic particles (SEPs) that penetrate millimeters below the surface.
Composition, Mineralogy, and Noble-Gas Content of Apollo 17 Particles and Soils From the 73002 Drive Tube
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Performance of Navigation Doppler Lidar on First US Lunar Landing Since Apollo 17
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Composition, Mineralogy, and Noble Gas Content of Apollo 17 Particles and Soils From the 73002 Drive Tube
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Primordial radionuclide variations in the Apollo 15 and 17 deep core samples and in Apollo 17 igneous rocks and breccias
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
Astrionics system designers handbook, volume 1
Hardware elements in new and advanced astrionics system designs are discussed. This cost effective approach has as its goal the reduction of R&D and testing costs through the application of proven and tested astrionics components. The ready availability to the designer of data facts for applicable system components is highly desirable. The astrionics System Designers Handbook has as its objective this documenting of data facts to serve the anticipated requirements of the astrionics system designer. Eleven NASA programs were selected as the reference base for the document. These programs are: ATS-F, ERTS-B, HEAO-A, OSO-I, Viking Orbiter, OAO-C, Skylab AM/MDA, Skylab ATM, Apollo 17 CSM, Apollo 17 LM and Mariner Mars 71. Four subsystems were chosen for documentation: communications, data management, electrical power and guidance, navigation and control.
Causes of compositional variations within mare basalt suites
The short-range unmixing model, which explains compositional variations produced during crystallization of a single undifferentiated basalt flow, has been applied to the variations found within each of the suites of mare basalts. Based on this modelling, the following suites of mare basalts could represent random samples from single, undifferentiated lava flows: Apollo 11 A (high K), Apollo 15 olivine, Apollo 17 A-U, Apollo 17 B, Apollo 17 C. The short range unmixing model fails to account for variations within the Apollo 12 olivine-pigeonite group and Apollo 12 ilmenite group, which are well explained by fractional crystallization. The fact that the compositional variations within a suite of samples of unknown affinity can be explained in terms of short-range unmixing of a single lava does not mean that they are necessarily related in that way. It does, however, mean that independent evidence (stratigraphic, petrographic, isotropic, or age) is required to support arguments for the variations being caused by fraction crystallization or different magma batches.
Revisiting the petrogenesis of pyroclastic glass bead deposits at the Apollo 15 and 17 sites
The Apollo 15 low-titanium and Apollo 17 high-titanium pyroclastic glass beads are amongst the most primitive magmatically derived samples obtained from the Moon. Two key samples, the low-Ti Apollo 15426 green glass clod and the high-Ti Apollo 74220 orange glass are morphologically distinct, where the Apollo 15 beads are larger (~ 107 μm along maximum axis) and more fractured, and the Apollo 17 are smaller (~42 μm) and less fractured. In this study, holohyaline beads as well as crystallized beads were examined from both samples. Crystallized beads show compositional variability in major, minor, and trace elements and enable examination of magmatic mineral fractionation processes during cooling of both deposits. The Apollo 15426 beads experienced variable olivine crystallization, whereas the Apollo 74220 beads experienced both olivine and ilmenite crystallization. Holohyaline beads from both deposits show more limited major, minor, and trace element variability than their crystallized counterparts. Trace element abundance data for individual holohyaline beads show that in Apollo 74220, they are tightly clustered at ~30 × Carbonaceous Ivuna chondrite [CI] with negative Eu anomalies and subchondritic Nb/Ta, and interpreted to reflect the presence of late-stage magma ocean cumulate overturned into an otherwise primitive mantle source. Incompatible trace element abundances for holohyaline beads in 15426 are supra-chondritic from ~8 × CI, to >80 × CI, with pronounced relative depletions in Sr and Eu for the most incompatible element enriched beads, which represent a distinct bead group within the deposit. Apollo 15426 beads have elevated Ni and Co abundances at the edges of the beads compared to their centers. These data are interpreted to reflect a more complex magmatic evolution of the 15426 deposit, beginning with: (i) initial magma generation, storage and assimilation within shallower low-Ca and high-Ca pyroxene bearing magma ocean cumulates (15B,C); (ii) mobilization of the earlier magmas by more recently generated primitive magmas (15A); (iii) eruption and crystallization of some beads (15D,E), and (iv) later jumbling of the deposit, possible impact contamination and addition of exotic bead components (J Group). In contrast, the 74220 data shows no discernable difference between Ni and Co abundances at the edges and centers supporting prior observations for limited melt fractionation and an absence of meteoritic components. It is further suggested that both deposits are likely to have been formed in the presence of a transient atmosphere. Using 74220 melt compositions from this study, post-entrapment crystallization abundances range from 266 to 1130 micrograms/g for H 2 O, 36 to 68 micrograms/g for F, 441 to 832 micrograms/g for S, and zero to 2.31 micrograms/g for Cl, consistent with prior studies and suggesting up to ~0.1 wt.% H 2 O in the melt, with considerably less in the source. The role that late-stage magma ocean cumulates rich in ilmenite, apatite and high-Ca pyroxene might play in modifying this volatile element estimate, however, casts remaining doubt on the volatile element abundance and evolution of the primitive Moon.
Oxygen isotopic constraints on the composition of the moon
The mean oxygen isotopic composition of 5 Apollo 17 soils, one Apollo 17 breccia and one Apollo 12 soil is delta O-18 = 5.63 + or - .05 and delta O-17 = 3.8 + or - .2%. These values are within several tenths of a part permil of the composition of a large fraction of the lunar interior. High-temperature condensate aggregates from Allende and other C2 and C3 chondrites are vastly enriched in O-16 compared to this composition. The moon cannot be a mixture of ordinary chondrites and Allende inclusions, nor can it be derived from such a mixture by chemical fractionation processes. The moon's isotopic composition is consistent with a mixture of high- and low-temperature condensates but the refractory fraction would have to be free of the O-16-rich component so prevalent in the meteoritic aggregates, a fact which makes such models less attractive than they once seemed.
Cosmic ray exposure ages of features and events at the Apollo landing sites
Cosmic-ray exposure ages of lunar samples have been used to date surface features related to impact cratering and downslope movement of material. Only when multiple samples related to a feature have the same rare-gas exposure age or when a single sample has the same Kr-81 -Kr and track-exposure age can a feature be considered as reliably dated. Based on these criteria, there are only five well-dated lunar features: Cone Crater (Apollo 14), 26 m.y,; North Ray Crater (Apollo 16), 50 m.y.; South Ray Crater (Apollo 16), 2 m.y.; the emplacement of the Station 6 boulders (Apollo 17), 22 m.y.; and the emplacement of the Station 7 boulder (Apollo 17), 28 m.y. Other features are tentatively dated or have limits set on their ages: Bench Crater (Apollo 12), upper limit of 99 m.y.; Baby Ray Crater (Apollo 16), upper limit of 2 m.y.; Shorty Crater (Apollo 17), approximately 30 m.y.; Camelot Crater (Apollo 17) upper limit of 140 m.y.; the emplacement of the Station 2 boulder 1 (Apollo 17), 45 to 55 m.y.; and the slide which generated the light mantle (Apollo 17), lower limit of 50 m.y.
Sulfur in lunar mare basalts as a function of bulk composition
Sulfur abundances and metallic iron abundances in 18 Apollo 12 mare basalts were determined. No correlation between sulfur abundance and metallic iron content was detected; metallic iron abundances are not primarily caused by S loss. Sulfur abundances, directly related to the bulk composition of the rocks and especially to the TiO2 content, increase with increasing degrees of fractionation and appear to result from S concentration in the melts during fractionation. Unlike the Apollo 17 melts, the Apollo 12 melts were unsaturated with respect to sulfide. Composition appears to control S content for Apollo 17 basalts, and cumulus processes may cause Fe-FeS enrichment.
Sulfur abundances and distributions in mare basalts and their source magmas
An inverse correlation between metallic iron content and total sulfur abundances was observed by Gibson and Moore (1974) for five Apollo 17 and six Apollo 15 basalts. An investigation was conducted with the objective to distinguish between two processes leading to the inverse metallic iron and total sulfur correlation. The investigation included analyses of ten Apollo 15 and five Apollo 17 basalts for their sulfur and metallic iron abundances along with carbon and hydrogen. The sulfur isotopic compositions were measured for a possible identification of the fractionation processes which might have occurred during volatilization of the basalts.
Sulfur abundances and distributions in the valley of Taurus-Littrow
Total sulfur abundances have been determined for 36 Apollo 17 soil, breccia and crystalline rock samples. Sulfur concentrations range from 550 to 1300 micrograms S/g for soil samples, with the orange soil containing the lowest amount of sulfur. Noritic breccias contain between 720 and 950 micrograms S/g, while the anorthositic rocks have sulfur contents of 270 and 368 micrograms S/g. The dunite 72415 contained the lowest sulfur content (44 micrograms S/g) of any Apollo 17 sample studied. Apollo 17 basalts have unusually high sulfur contents (1580-2770 micrograms S/g) as compared to Apollo 12 and 15 basalts and terrestrial basalts. Sulfur abundances for the Apollo 17 basalts are almost identical to those from Apollo 11 basalts. A negative correlation between percent metallic iron and total sulfur for the Apollo 17 and 15 basalts was found and suggests that a portion of the metallic iron in lunar basalts may result from desulfuration of the melt prior to crystallization from the lunar magma.