Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “lunar exploration”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS2009

Luna: What Did We Learn and What Should We Expect?

This presentation presents a look at the space program's background prior to lunar exploration and highlights the Apollo program and lessons learned from lunar exploration. The possibilities of exposures and difficulties attributed to lunar dust are described, including obscured vision, clogged equipment, coated surfaces, and inhalation, among others. A lunar dust simulant is proposed to support preliminary studies. Lunar dust is constantly activated by meteorite lunar dust, UV radiation and elements of solar wind - this active dust could produce reactive species. Methods of deactivation must be determined before new lunar missions, but first we must understand how to reactivate dust on Earth. Activation methods tested and described here include crushing/grinding or UV activation. Grinding time has a direct effect on amount of hydroxyl radicals produced upon addition of ground quartz to a solution. An increase in hydroxyl production was also seen for a lunar simulant with increased grinding.

Wallace, William T.↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Situ XRF Measurements in Lunar Surface Exploration Using Apollo Samples as a Standard

Samples collected during the Apollo lunar surface missions were sampled and returned to Earth by astronauts with varying degrees of geological experience. The technology used in these EVAs, or extravehicular activities, included nothing more advanced than traditional terrestrial field instruments: rock hammer, scoop, claw tool, and sample bags. 40 years after Apollo, technology is being developed that will allow for a high-resolution geochemical map to be created in the field real-time. Handheld x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technology is one such technology. We use handheld XRF to enable a broad in-situ characterization of a geologic site of interest based on fairly rapid techniques that can be implemented by either an astronaut or a robotic explorer. The handheld XRF instrument we used for this study was the Innov-X Systems Delta XRF spectrometer.

Young, Kelsey E.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Unmanned lunar rovers: Utilization for exploration

A small lunar rover and its use for lunar exploration are described. Constraints on a rover mission in the fields of communications, power, speed, navigation/hazard avoidance, and operational time are discussed. The rover design concept consistent with the constraints is described. The instruments to be used, again constrained by mass and power requirements, are listed. Three mission objectives are examined: geological exploration; resource assessment; and a geotechnical survey. It was determined that a small rover, with a mass of less than 60 kg and which would be compatible with being carried on the first Artemis lunar lander, could be built and could accomplish significant scientific exploration or the collection of engineering information.

Plescia, J. B.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Energy Storage for Lunar Surface Exploration

This paper presents the updated results of a previous NASA study funded under the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Modular Power Systems (AMPS) project. This work focuses on generating high-level system sizing relationships for two lunar surface locations that serve as bounding conditions for most other locations. Four critical parameters are considered to provide sizing data: specific energy, energy density, specific power, and power density. Given the energy storage requirements or customer power demand for a lunar mission location, the data presented in this paper provides a method to determine the critical parameter values of a Regenerative Fuel Cell (RFC) system in order to perform high-level mission architecture trades.

surface power systems↗
NASA NTRS2007

Propellant Gauging for Exploration

This paper presents a brief overview of propellant gauging needs and requirements in the context of lunar exploration missions defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) report. A timeline for the development and testing of gauging technologies, and a few key design review dates are presented. A lunar exploration mission scenario is discussed which aids in defining the propellant gauging needs. The fleet of new exploration vehicles includes the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, Earth Departure Stage (EDS), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) ascent and descent stages, and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The liquid propellant choices are currently oxygen - hydrogen for the launch vehicles, the EDS, and LSAM descent module; oxygen - methane for LSAM ascent module; and monomethylhydrazine nitrogen tetroxide (MMH-NTO) for the CEV. Estimated tank sizes, temperatures, pressures, and storage durations are presented. A baseline propellant gauging system is proposed that is based on high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) gauging technologies. In order to be considered for use on the new exploration vehicles, any new gauging technologies will have to show a clear benefit over the baseline methods in terms of performance and/or cost.

Zimmerli, Gregory A.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Where on the moon - An Apollo systems engineering problem.

Approaches used in the selection of lunar landing sites are discussed, giving attention to a survey of major constraints affecting site selection. The science objectives of lunar exploration are considered, taking into account exploration goals, the acquisition of required data, mission science planning, orbital science, lunar surface traverse capability, the mare basalts, lunar interior composition, regolith, breccias, lunar chronology, lunar surface processes, and the origin of the moon. Subjects examined in connection with Apollo system capabilities include the Apollo missions, development missions, lunar exploration missions, mission design requirements, navigation, launch vehicle considerations, methods of determining accessibility, lunar module descent considerations, landing site redesignation, and questions of landability.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Advanced Thermal Radiator for Global Lunar Heat Rejection

An advanced thermal radiator innovation to provide global heat rejection for Lunar exploration is described in this paper. Infrared background radiation from Lunar terrain can seriously compromise the performance of conventional thermal radiators, especially at lower latitudes. The Apollo missions boiled consumable H2O for heat rejection which would be unsustainable for long duration Lunar exploration where temperatures may exceed 250°F at the equator. The proposed innovation would provide indefinite, sustainable heat rejection for orbiting assets, rovers, landers and habitats over the entire surface of the Moon. The advanced radiator concept introduces a semi-transparent cover-glass to transmit and reflect both incident infrared radiation and solar irradiation to facilitate improved heat rejection. With sponsorship from MSFC Center Innovation Funding (CIF), two advanced radiator concepts were fabricated and evaluated inside the High Intensity Solar Environment Test (HISET) facility thermal vacuum chamber at MSFC. Using custom designed and fabricated test stands in the HISET chamber, the tests simulated both the Lunar terrestrial (inside a crater under full sun) and orbital thermal environments. A conventional radiator was also fabricated and tested under identical conditions for comparison. Test results indicate improved radiator performance (relative to conventional) in the Lunar orbital environment but the advanced radiators did not perform as well as expected in the surface environment. Correlation to thermal math models is presented and future research may consider alternate materials or designs to improve the terrestrial performance.

Thermal Control System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Survey of Autonomous Navigation Techniques Applicable to Lunar Surface Exploration

As humanity returns to the Moon, and more and more attention is being paid to lunar surface operations, there is a greater need than ever for methods of surface navigation. These could be methods of computer-assisted orienteering for astronauts exploring on foot during an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA), or methods of solving the Lost-on-the-Moon problem to initialize a crewed or autonomous rover’s state estimate. It may also be necessary to process navigation data associated with surface samples or other surface operations a posteriori to better understand where that analysis occurred. Autonomous rover operation will also require Hazard Detection and Avoidance (HDA) and terrain-aware pathfinding. While navigation on the surface of the Moon will likely rely on Earth-based assets such as the Deep Space Network (DSN) or communication with other spacecraft (e.g., LunaNet, LCRNS, pre-deployed moon beacons, a nearby lander) it may be necessary to navigate in a loss-of-communication scenario. This paper analyzes the methods of surface navigation used on other celestial bodies, such as those used during the Apollo missions and autonomous exploration of Mars, as well as novel methods which have been studied but not yet implemented which may prove useful. It is shown that the navigator has myriad options when processing data from an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), a star tracker, (rover) wheel encoders, optical cameras, and LIght Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors. The intention of this paper is to provide a broad overview of what has been done and what could be done, to aid those designing vehicles and/or missions to the lunar surface.

Paul D Mckee↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Survey of Autonomous Navigation Techniques Applicable to Lunar Surface Exploration

As humanity returns to the Moon, and more and more attention is being paid to lunar surface operations, there is a greater need than ever for methods of surface navigation. These could be methods of computer-assisted orienteering for astronauts exploring on foot during an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA), or methods of solving the Lost-on-the-Moon problem to initialize a crewed or autonomous rover’s state estimate. It may also be necessary to process navigation data associated with surface samples or other surface operations a posteriori to better understand where that analysis occurred. Autonomous rover operation will also require Hazard Detection and Avoidance (HDA) and terrain-aware pathfinding. While navigation on the surface of the Moon will likely rely on Earth-based assets such as the Deep Space Network (DSN) or communication with other spacecraft (e.g., LunaNet, LCRNS, pre-deployed moon beacons, a nearby lander) it may be necessary to navigate in a loss-of-communication scenario. This paper analyzes the methods of surface navigation used on other celestial bodies, such as those used during the Apollo missions and autonomous exploration of Mars, as well as novel methods which have been studied but not yet implemented which may prove useful. It is shown that the navigator has myriad options when processing data from an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), a star tracker, (rover) wheel encoders, optical cameras, and LIght Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors. The intention of this paper is to provide a broad overview of what has been done and what could be done, to aid those designing vehicles and/or missions to the lunar surface.

Paul McKee↗
NASA NTRS2018

Temperature Constraints on the Storage and Curation of Volatile-Rich Samples from the Lunar Poles

Final Document is attached. Introduction: NASA's Lunar Exploration Campaign includes Lunar sample return efforts beginning in the mid-2020's and human landed missions in the late 2020's-early 2030's. Volatile-rich samples from the Lunar poles will be high-priority targets due to their resource potential for human explorers and high science value. In order to precisely characterize the nature of these polar volatile materials upon return to Earth, they will need to be transported and curated under conditions that minimize their chemical and physical alteration. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7100.10F mandates the preservation of existing extraterrestrial samples with minimal alteration, extensive and quantitative documentation of alteration that is provided to investigators, and "the development of long-range plans" for samples yet to be acquired. This abstract summarizes new efforts by the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at JSC to assess the optimal

Mitchell, J. L.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Man-Made Debris In and From Lunar Orbit

During 1966-1976, as part of the first phase of lunar exploration, 29 manned and robotic missions placed more than 40 objects into lunar orbit. Whereas several vehicles later successfully landed on the Moon and/or returned to Earth, others were either abandoned in orbit or intentionally sent to their destruction on the lunar surface. The former now constitute a small population of lunar orbital debris; the latter, including four Lunar Orbiters and four Lunar Module ascent stages, have contributed to nearly 50 lunar sites of man's refuse. Other lunar satellites are known or suspected of having fallen from orbit. Unlike Earth satellite orbital decays and deorbits, lunar satellites impact the lunar surface unscathed by atmospheric burning or melting. Fragmentations of lunar satellites, which would produce clouds of numerous orbital debris, have not yet been detected. The return to lunar orbit in the 1990's by the Hagoromo, Hiten, Clementine, and Lunar Prospector spacecraft and plans for increased lunar exploration early in the 21st century, raise questions of how best to minimize and to dispose of lunar orbital debris. Some of the lessons learned from more than 40 years of Earth orbit exploitation can be applied to the lunar orbital environment. For the near-term, perhaps the most important of these is postmission passivation. Unique solutions, e.g., lunar equatorial dumps, may also prove attractive. However, as with Earth satellites, debris mitigation measures are most effectively adopted early in the concept and design phase, and prevention is less costly than remediation.

Johnson, Nicholas L.↗
NASA NTRS1985

The need for a lunar base - Answering basic questions about planetary science

After assessing the state of current understanding of the planetological characteristics of the moon, attention is given to numerous questions that have arisen about the history of the moon and to prospective methods for their investigation through lunar exploration. One such exploratory mission will be that of the unmanned Lunar Geoscience Observer; the greatest prospects for important discoveries, however, are foreseen in manned lunar exploration. More sophisticated instruments and preliminary analyses are noted to be possible in manned exploration, although the possibility of contamination of samples is greater.

Taylor, G. J.↗
NASA NTRS1995

International Exploration of the Moon: A View from the IAF

On October 3, 1995 there were nine papers delivered on the topic of Lunar Exploration at the IAF Congress in Oslo, Norway. Some papers covered the national plans for lunar exploration. These included both robotic and human exploration missions. Additional papers discussed elements of the placement of permanent bases on the lunar surface. A review of the key points and plans presented at this international meeting will be presented.

OHandley, Douglas A.↗