SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LUNAR PROGRAM”

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 325 records · Page 18

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Crew Launch Vehicle Overview

The US. Vision for Space Exploration, announced January 2004, outlines the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. These include: 1) Flying the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. 2) Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. 3) Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration. 4) Completing the International Space Station (ISS) in a manner consistent with international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. 5) Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. 6) Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. Following the confirmation of the new NASA Administrator in April 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts from government and industry to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which provided in-depth information for selecting the follow-on launch vehicle designs to enable these goals, The ESAS team analyzed a number of potential launch systems, with a focus on: (1) a human-rated launch vehicle for crew transport and (2) a heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) to carry cargo. After several months of intense study utilizing technical performance, budget, and schedule objectives, the results showed that the optimum architecture to meet the challenge of safe, reliable crew transport is a two-stage variant of the Space Shuttle propulsion system - utilizing the reusable Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) as the first stage, along with a new upper stage that uses a derivative of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine to deliver 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit. The CEV that this new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) lofts into space early next decade will initially ferry astronauts to the Space Station and be capable of carrying crews back to lunar orbit and of supporting missions to Mars orbit. The HLLV system will utilize the Shuttle External Tank combined with SRBs. The focus of this paper is on the CLV system, giving an overview of plans and progress to date.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS1965

Report of geophysics working group

Lunar exploration program to determine surface and interior physical properties of moon - heat flow measurements, seismology, traverse logging, and instruments for deep probes and surface use

PHYSICAL PROPERTY↗

NASA NTRS1993

Fault management for data systems

Issues related to automating the process of fault management (fault diagnosis and response) for data management systems are considered. Substantial benefits are to be gained by successful automation of this process, particularly for large, complex systems. The use of graph-based models to develop a computer assisted fault management system is advocated. The general problem is described and the motivation behind choosing graph-based models over other approaches for developing fault diagnosis computer programs is outlined. Some existing work in the area of graph-based fault diagnosis is reviewed, and a new fault management method which was developed from existing methods is offered. Our method is applied to an automatic telescope system intended as a prototype for future lunar telescope programs. Finally, an application of our method to general data management systems is described.

Boyd, Mark A.↗

NASA NTRS1967

Gemini results as related to the Apollo program

The Gemini Program was conceived to provide a space system that could furnish answers to many of the problems in operating manned vehicles in space. It was designed to build upon the experience gained from Project Mercury, and to extend and expand this fund of experience in support of the manned lunar landing program and other future manned space-flight programs. The purpose of this paper is to relate some of the results of the Gemini Program to the Apollo Program, and to discuss some of the contributions which have been made. The objectives of the Gemini Program applicable to Apollo are : (1) long-duration flight, (2) rendezvous and docking, (3) post-docking maneuver capability, (4) controlled reentry and landing, (5) flight- and groundcrew proficiency, and (6) extra vehicular capability. The achievement of these objectives has provided operational experience and confirmed much of the technology which will be utilized in future manned programs. These contributions will be discussed in three major areas : launch and flight operations, flight-crew operations and training, and technological development of subsystems and components. While there is obvious interrelation among the three elements, the grouping affords emphasis and order to the discussion.

structural integrity↗

NASA NTRS1961

Preliminary Survey of Retrograde Velocities Required for Insertion Into Low-Altitude Lunar Orbits

Closed lunar orbits are envisaged in lunar mission programs. The study described herein was undertaken to obtain an appreciation of the relevant fuel consumption requirements. The retrograde impulses necessary for establishing the orbits were assumed to occur at the point of closest approach of the main earth-moon trajectory; this point, designated as the arrival position, was restricted to a lunar altitude of 5,000 nautical miles or less. The orientation of the arrival position vector relevant to any coplanar radius vector is not constrained, however, and similarly the scalar value of the arrival velocity is unrestrained. Since the arrival altitude is restricted to 5,000 nautical miles or less, the perturbing accelerations of the earth and sun are sufficiently small that the vehicle and moon essentially comprise an isolated two-body system; this is discussed in the report. Retrograde velocities are determined for any required pericynthion position. If the pericynthion orientation requirement is relaxed then a smaller retrograde velocity is in some cases possible. A comparison between minimum retrograde velocities and retrograde velocities necessary for stipulated pericynthion positions is given. Arrival velocities are correlated with feasible earth departure conditions. The equations developed for determining retrograde velocities for desired pericynthion positions are considered useful for estimating essential data for the preliminary planning of lunar missions. Some graphical representation is included herein for immediate familiarization with possible conditions.

Jenkins, Morris V.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Initial Artemis Human Landing System

In April 2020, NASA announced the selection of three companies to begin the initial phase of development of human landing systems to take the first woman and the first person of color to the lunar surface through NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration program. The selected companies were a Blue Origin-led team with Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Draper; Dynetics (a Leidos company); and SpaceX. Contracts were awarded shortly after, kicking off a ten-month base period during which NASA worked closely with each company to finalize functional and performance requirements, confirm lander development standards, and establish baseline designs, schedules, and management plans for contract execution and human spaceflight certification. At the end of the base period, in the Spring of 2021, NASA awarded a single follow-on Option A contract to SpaceX to continue their work on Human Landing System (HLS) Starship development. Currently NASA and SpaceX are working collaboratively on Option A which will ultimately culminate in one uncrewed and one crewed mission to the lunar surface under Artemis III. This paper will provide a look at the Option A phase of development for the Human Landing System Program, including publicly available information on SpaceX’s HLS Starship design as well as near-term and future milestones for HLS and the Artemis program.

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Reflections on 20 Years of Research on the International Space Station

November 2, 2000 began an era of continuous human presence on the International Space Station (ISS). That first crewed expedition to the ISS had few scientific instruments and facilities to work with, yet managed to conduct 52research investigations. Today, crew oversee upwards of 300 investigations during their time aboard. Indeed, over the past 20 years the ISS has evolved into a robust laboratory with dozens of research facilities, capabilities for the autonomous monitoring and conduct of research, and a growing array of scientific tools available and observational instruments active. As a result, the station has hosted more than 3,000 research investigations generating more than 2,400 scientific publications across every major discipline of science. The ISS Program Science Forum is composed of senior science representatives across the station’s international partnership. It provides multilateral science leadership to the ISS Program. Indeed, ISS research has evolved to become a truly international activity encompassing the participation of more than 4,000 investigators from over 100 countries whose research has been completed or is ongoing. This paper provides an overview of the research and technology development conducted to date and reflects upon the accomplishments, impacts and future direction of ISS research from the perspective of the member organizations of the Program Science Forum. Research areas which have been a focus of ISS research to date and key implications both for future space exploration and scientific advancement are presented. Major Earth benefits derived from ISS research are discussed. Finally, the paper provides insight into areas of emphasis for future research including the maturation of technological capabilities needed for deep space exploration, including lunar exploration programs such as Artemis and future missions to Mars

International Space Station↗

NASA NTRS2009

A Near-Term, High-Confidence Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle

The use of well understood, legacy elements of the Space Shuttle system could yield a near-term, high-confidence Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle that offers significant performance, reliability, schedule, risk, cost, and work force transition benefits. A side-mount Shuttle-Derived Vehicle (SDV) concept has been defined that has major improvements over previous Shuttle-C concepts. This SDV is shown to carry crew plus large logistics payloads to the ISS, support an operationally efficient and cost effective program of lunar exploration, and offer the potential to support commercial launch operations. This paper provides the latest data and estimates on the configurations, performance, concept of operations, reliability and safety, development schedule, risks, costs, and work force transition opportunities for this optimized side-mount SDV concept. The results presented in this paper have been based on established models and fully validated analysis tools used by the Space Shuttle Program, and are consistent with similar analysis tools commonly used throughout the aerospace industry. While these results serve as a factual basis for comparisons with other launch system architectures, no such comparisons are presented in this paper. The authors welcome comparisons between this optimized SDV and other Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle concepts.

Rothschild, William J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): A Practical and Cost Effective Approach

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first mission of the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP), a space exploration venture to the Moon, Mars and beyond. The LRO mission includes spacecraft developed by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and seven instruments built by GSFC, Russia, and contractors across the nation. LRO is defined as a measurement mission, not a science mission. It emphasizes the overall objectives of obtaining data to facilitate returning mankind safely to the Moon in preparation for an eventual manned mission to Mars. As the first mission in response to the President's commitment of the journey of exploring the solar system and beyond: returning to the Moon in the next decade, then venturing further into the solar system, ultimately sending humans to Mars and beyond, LRO has high-visibility to the public but limited resources and a tight schedule. This paper demonstrates how NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission project office incorporated reliability analyses in assessing risks and performing design tradeoffs to ensure mission success. Risk assessment is performed using NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.5 - Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Procedures for NASA Programs and Projects to formulate probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). As required, a limited scope PRA is being performed for the LRO project. The PRA is used to optimize the mission design within mandated budget, manpower, and schedule constraints. The technique that LRO project office uses to perform PRA relies on the application of a component failure database to quantify the potential mission success risks. To ensure mission success in an efficient manner, low cost and tight schedule, the traditional reliability analyses, such as reliability predictions, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), are used to perform PRA for the large system of LRO with more than 14,000 piece parts and over 120 purchased or contractor built components.

Lee, Lydia L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

Although infrequent, there have been Apollo program reports of lunar dust (LD) exposure leading to notable upper respiratory symptoms in select crewmembers. Possible mechanisms include particulate irritation, oxidization and release of noxious gas, or legitimate adaptive immune-mediated response. Although sterile non-protein matter would not be expected to be an allergen, one Apollo flight surgeon reported increasing symptoms upon repeated exposure with associated eosinophilia, indicative of allergy (*Acta Astronautica. 2008 63 (7–10): 980–987). Many ISS crews display a pattern of persistent immune system dysregulation and latent virus reactivation (NPJ Microgravity. 2015 Sep 3; 1:15013; NPJ Microgravity. 2017 Apr 12; 3:11). Some ISS crews manifest atypical respiratory and/or dermatitis symptoms which could have an allergic pathogenesis (J Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 4(4):759-762.e8). It is logical to anticipate crew immune dysregulation would worsen during prolonged deep space missions. Planetary surface hazards will only complicate crew health risks. This study with investigate if LD exposure will elicit an IgE mediated allergic response either to the LD itself or concomitant antigen exposure during spaceflight. Allergic reactivity could adversely increase clinical and operational impacts for long-duration lunar astronauts and affect countermeasure requirements for surface vehicles. Specific aims for this study are to answer two questions: (1) Does in vitro LD exposure result in increased histamine from human peripheral blood basophils? (2) Can LD impact the capacity of CD4+ T helper and/or CD19+ B-cell mediated IgE production? To address these questions, after the proposal and selection by NASA, our laboratory has separately requested and been approved for receipt of actual LD samples from the Apollo 16 mission. These samples will be used during the study to complete the proposed set of in vitro cell culture experiments (short and long term), using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and basophils from both atopic and non-atopic individuals. Cells will be co-cultured with cellular mitogens, common recall antigens (Der p1), fine ground silica quartz (as a possible allergenic component of LD), or LD, to study whether LD exposure for varying time intervals will alter the generation of selective immune responses associated with clinical allergic reactions. Measured outputs include supernatant-derived IgE, tryptase, histamine, and selected cytokine levels. Cellular activation will be monitored by assessing activation markers via flow cytometry. EM/x-ray analysis will be used to determine cellular interactions with dust particles. A series of validation experiments was initiated in FY22 once the delivery of LD was received. Based on initial experimental findings, we are optimizing the culture conditions, LD concentrations, and refining our other protocol stimuli.

Audrie A. Colorado↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazards of Lunar Surface Exploration: Determining the Immunogenicity/Allergenicity of Lunar Dust

immunology↗

NASA NTRS1988

How successful were the lunar sampling tools: Implications for sampling Mars

Like the Mars Sample Return endeavor, the Apollo lunar-sample program began with definition of strategy for sample collection and of scientific requirements for sampling hardware design. Several lessons can be illustrated by specific tools. The evolution of drive tubes from narrow 2 cm diameter, thick-walled tubes (used on Apollo 11, 12 and 14) to 4 cm diameter, thin-walled tubes used on Apollo 15, 16, and 17) as an example of the improvements made possible during multiple missions. The original Apollo 11 drive tube was designed to work in fluffy soil; thus, only 50 percent of the relatively dense lunar soil was recovered, and the core was distorted. The final configuration resulted in nearly 100 pct recovery with little distortion. The surface samplers (Contact Soil Sampling Devices) were designed to collect the upper 100 micrometer or the upper 1 mm of soil. It was over 2 years after the mission before these particularly specific samplers were opened because interest in them waned. Both core tubes and surface samplers were difficult to open in the laboratory. The Apollo Lunar Sample Return Containers (ALSRCs) were constructed with one indium and 2 Viton seals. They were closed on the lunar surface. Interior container pressures measured upon return to the laboratory indicate that these seals were not reliable in the lunar environment. Also, choice of indium as a sealing material interfered with siderophile analyses of samples.

Allton, J. H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

All-Metal Antennas for Lunar Exploration

In support of NASA's lunar exploration program, the feasibility of an all-metal antenna and its variants for communications and navigation is investigated. The all-metal antenna is of the short backfire type with a waveguide feed and generates a linearly polarized radiation. The investigation includes the design, fabrication, and characterization of the antennas. The paper summarizes the initial results of the investigation.

All-metal antennas↗

NASA NTRS1993

MinMap: An imaging spectrometer for high resolution compositional mapping of the Moon

MinMap has been selected by the Lunar Scout program to characterize and map the mineral composition of the Moon. The instrument will be built as a collaborative effort between Brown University, SETS Technology Inc., and Ball Aerospace Corp. MinMap is a visible to near-infrared imaging spectrometer that contains 192 spectral channels from 0.35-2.4 microns with signal to noise greater than 200 and 256 cross-track spatial elements. The spectrometer design has a 6 deg field of view (FOV) and utilizes grating dispersive elements and two dimensional detectors (no moving parts). An 'image cube' of data is produced that contains two dimensions of spatial information and one dimension of spectral information. All spectral channels and cross-track spatial elements are recorded simultaneously with spacecraft motion scanning the second spatial dimension. The high spectral resolution and continuous spectral range of MinMap are designed to measure the diagnostic absorption features of principal lunar minerals and their lithologic mixtures. Since the optical properties of lunar materials change in a regular manner upon exposure to the space environment, this spectral range is also quite sensitive to variations in exposure history (soil maturity). Nominal measurement stragegy is to obtain full global data of the Moon at 180 m/pixel from a 450 km polar orbit during the first month or two of operation. A 100 km orbit is anticipated for the remaining part of a 1 year mission allowing higher resolution data (approx. 80 m/pixel) to be obtained for targeted regions. MinMap exceeds LE x SWG's measurement recommendations and will provide the highest spatial resolution compositional map of lunar rocks and soils currently planned for orbital missions. Since all spectral channels are co-registered and obtained simultaneously, 'image cube' data swaths will be available for analysis almost immediately.

Pieters, C. M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancements in Lunar Dust Mitigation and Leveraging the Contamination Control Community

Lunar Dust Contamination: As we get closer to putting landers, rovers, payloads, and astronauts on the Moon, dust mitigation is becoming more critical than ever. To address the many challenges of dust mitigation on the surface, engineers and scientists are looking at various technologies that may have relevance for the contamination control community. This includes active, passive, architectural, and operational solutions. There have been advances in coatings for dust mitigation at NASA and through commercial partnerships (see Wiesner, Wohl, et al). There have been advancements to previous solutions as well as novel solutions to address dust mitigation on the surface and on-orbit. There have been several efforts to better understand the effectiveness of various terrestrial and dust mitigation solutions with much of this data published in recent years. In the area of dust mitigation, dust contamination or infiltration refers to the impingement or contact of planetary dust with items not normally dusty and whose operation may therefore be compromised. Recent Advancements in Dust Mitigation: Dust mitigation strategies are becoming more common for hardware heading to the Moon, with most major programs implementing lunar dust contamination requirements for human health and equipment. In the last couple of years, NASA has created more guidance to assist hardware developers with dust mitigation. This includes NASA-STD-1008 (Classifications and Requirements for Testing Systems and Hardware to be Exposed to Dust in Planetary) and NASA TP 20220018746 (Lunar Dust Mitigation Guide and Reference). Several projects are testing hardware in relevant dusty environments to understand their tolerance to lunar dust. There has been a significant increase in the amount of testing with lunar simulants, with the NASA Simulant Advisory Committee serving a resource for NASA and our partners. There are new solutions for detecting and monitoring the dust internally and externally. Learning from the contamination control community: In addition to sharing potentially relevant solutions at the workshop, the dust mitigation community is also interested in learning from the contamination control community on ways to address lunar dust. For instance, a major aspect of managing the dust is monitoring and detection. This is critical for understanding when maintenance is needed and to inform future missions. Another challenge of working with lunar dust is quantifying and characterizing the smallest of particles. There are also challenges in modeling lunar dust and its behavior. The dust mitigation community can also leverage lessons learned from the planetary protection community.

dust mitagation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Space Launch System Prepares for Key Hotfire Test Before Vehicle Integration

NASA this year is working toward the final major integrated hardware and avionics test for its Space Launch System (SLS), the agency’s new super heavy-lift vehicle to send large, strategic payloads to the Moon, Mars and beyond. As the backbone of the Artemis human lunar exploration program, Artemis I SLS operations will then shift to the launch site and integration for the inaugural mission. For this final major test of the first vehicle NASA has built exclusively for deep space exploration since the Saturn V, a NASA/Boeing/Aerojet Rocketdyne team will conduct the final core stage “green run” test at NASA's Stennis Space Center with a dramatic firing of all four core stage engines. This test will validate the operation of the stage structures, main propulsion system, engines, avionics, and software. Following data review, stage inspection, and refurbishment, the stage will be barged to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center to continue integration of the Artemis I launch vehicle. Already underway is assembly of the mission’s five-segment solid rocket boosters. The mission’s upper stage and spacecraft adapters also are staged at the launch site ready for integration. Even as the Artemis I SLS proceeds toward launch later this year, the Artemis II and Artemis III vehicles are coming together, with core stages, engines, boosters, upper stage, and payload accommodations in various stages of manufacturing and/or processing. Planning is also underway for additional core stages and a new, more powerful upper stage that will increase lunar payload mass. SLS is the anchor transportation leg of a plan for sustained human exploration of the Moon, including the first human landing later in the decade. This paper will discuss SLS progress to date and expected 2021 milestones.

Bruce R. Askins↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗