Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Common Habitat”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Habitat Base Camp for Moon and Mars Surface Operations

The Common Habitat uses the SLS Core Stage Liquid Oxygen tank as the primary structure (similar to Skylab) and has an internal architecture compatible with microgravity, lunar gravity, and Mars gravity, such that identical versions of the same design can be used in all three environments. Applying the large dimensions and eight-person crew size of the Common Habitat to a surface architecture leads to a unique base camp configuration. A notional such base camp is described in this analysis. The base camp includes four distributed zones – habitation, landing, power, and resource production. The base camp is deployed and assembled in three phases: site preparation, element staging, and habitat delivery, each of which are briefly discussed. Crew arrival and departure is discussed, including variations caused by orbital mechanics-induced differences between the Moon and Mars base camps. Trash and logistics operations are described. Finally, crew operations within the base camp are described.

Lunar Outpost↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Multi-Functional, Two-Chamber Airlock Node for a Common Habitat Architecture

An airlock is generally considered a necessity for any large, habitable spacecraft. While suitports, docked rovers, and external robotics can reduce the need for airlock operations, at some point it is necessary to move both crew and equipment from a habitat interior to the exterior environment. The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat that uses the Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Liquid Oxygen tank as the primary structure (similar to Skylab) and has an internal architecture compatible with microgravity, lunar gravity, and Mars gravity, such that identical versions of the same design can be used in all three environments. It needs an airlock that is similarly appropriate for both surface and microgravity environments. After a brief survey of prior airlocks, the two-chamber node airlock concept applied to the Common Habitat architecture is described. This includes benefits of the dual chamber and node approaches, dimensions, hatches and docking ports, utilities connections, hatch covers, suit storage, EVA stowage, subsystems, and gravity-specific external attachments. Additionally, the functions of each chamber and reconfiguration capabilities are explained. Finally, conclusions and follow-on work are discussed.

Robert L Howard↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Common Habitat Deep Space Exploration Vehicle for Transit and Orbital Operations

When outfitted as a habitat, the SLS Core Stage Liquid Oxygen Tank is a pressure vessel that can be used to support human exploration in deep space. An exploration spacecraft can be constructed with this habitat, known as the Common Habitat, as its central element. More than just a transit vehicle, this spacecraft is a Deep Space Exploration Vehicle – a microgravity science laboratory capable of conducting research with onboard human crews throughout the inner solar system. Supplied with propellant by LEO depots, preliminary trajectory and v estimates indicate that the spacecraft can perform fly-by or orbital missions with trajectories close enough to the sun to intersect the orbit of Mercury or far enough away to fly by the main belt asteroid Vesta. Its primary mission, however, is to support human expeditions to Mars. Many, though not all, of the pressurized and unpressurized elements that compose the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle can also be used in surface base camps on the Moon and Mars. In additional to traditional space science disciplines, the spacecraft offers unique potential for small asteroid retrieval and for artificial gravity research. Three launches are used to deploy the spacecraft, but thirty-nine launches are used to deliver propellant to orbit to fully fuel the spacecraft for deep space missions. Key operations in a Mars crewed mission are described to illustrate how the vehicle is used and forward work is listed to mature the spacecraft concept.

Robert L. Howard Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Safe Haven Concept for the Common Habitat in Moon, Mars, and Transit Environments

The safe haven for the Common Habitat architectures, both the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle and the Moon/Mars surface basecamps, consists of the airlock, logistics modules, and in-space or surface pressurized rovers. These elements are repositioned to dock together and form a secondary habitable environment. The multiple elements that compose the safe haven and its ability to share utilities across docking ports give it multiple subsystem options to sustain the crew. In the safe haven configuration, the two logistics modules dock to the side hatches of the airlock outer chamber, one pressurized rover docks to the outermost airlock hatch, and the second pressurized rover docks to the first. This configuration provides no less than thirty days of habitation for the eight-person crew. It also allows the airlock inner chamber to be used for EVAs to both the exterior surface and the Common Habitat interior, which may have lost pressure during the event that triggered the need for a safe haven. These EVAs enable the crew to work to repair the habitat and restore habitation capability.

Base camp↗
NASA NTRS2015

Small Habitat Commonality Reduces Cost for Human Mars Missions

Most view the Apollo Program as expensive. It was. But, a human mission to Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult and costly. Recently, NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) mapped out a step-wise approach for exploring Mars and the Mars-moon system. It is early in the planning process but because approximately 80% of the total life cycle cost is committed during preliminary design, there is an effort to emphasize cost reduction methods up front. Amongst the options, commonality across small habitat elements shows promise for consolidating the high bow-wave costs of Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) while still accommodating each end-item's functionality. In addition to DDT&E, there are other cost and operations benefits to commonality such as reduced logistics, simplified infrastructure integration and with inter-operability, improved safety and simplified training. These benefits are not without a cost. Some habitats are sub-optimized giving up unique attributes for the benefit of the overall architecture and because the first item sets the course for those to follow, rapidly developing technology may be excluded. The small habitats within the EMC include the pressurized crew cabins for the ascent vehicle,

Griffin, Brand N.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gecko Mobility Aids for a Common Habitat Architecture

Spacecraft large enough for crew to move around inside them have traditionally used handrails and foot restraints to enable crew mobility. The mass of this hardware can become significant in large spacecraft such as the Common Habitat. Additionally, handrails and foot restraints in a multi-gravity habitat are trip hazards when the habitat is in a gravity environment. Further, ISS crew have noted risks of breaking ankles and wrists when using handrails for translation and have noted places where not enough handrails are present. Robotic gecko-derived grippers developed by JPL to retrieve satellites can be adapted to crew-worn pads that can adhere to surfaces to enable crew translation in microgravity. This technology will help to eliminate the need for handrails and foot restraints for mobility in crewed microgravity spacecraft cabins. It has the potential to achieve significant mass reductions in future space habitats, with application to suborbital flight, LEO, cislunar space, interplanetary space, the Moon, and Mars. Additionally, it can prevent crew injury and discomfort. Project goals and objectives are to prepare gecko uniform prototypes for use in multi-gravity testing and conduct initial investigations into human factors of postures and motions needed for intravehicular activity (IVA) translation and restraint in multiple gravity environments, without the use of handrails or foot restraints. Gecko grippers have been tested for use as robotic end effectors terrestrially, on microgravity aircraft, and aboard the ISS. Using the grippers as a body-mounted system to achieve IVA crew mobility is a new application that has not been pursued outside of this effort. This work will continue paper studies performed by NASA student interns by developing physical prototypes of spacecraft crew uniforms with gecko-derived body-mounted grippers. Clothing prototypes may include long sleeves, short sleeves, long pants, shorts, gloves, and/or booties equipped with gecko gripper pads. Forward work is to test these uniforms in a 1g environment to verify that the design does not introduce obstructions, trip hazards, or other consequences when used in terrestrial gravity. Based on the 1g test results, the uniform prototypes will be refined, and a test plan developed for testing at 0g, (1/6)g, and (3/8)g.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Habitat Design for Microgravity, Artificial Gravity and Partial Gravity in a Safe Haven Configuration

As space exploration efforts advance towards the returning to Lunar surface and later to Mars, new challenges emerge, and habitation becomes one of them. Having a custom manufacturing line for deep space transit and surface habitats (the Moon or Mars) implies a longer design and production line. Instead of spending great amounts of money and time on custom designs a common development has been explored where the interior architectural functions can be multifunctional, capable of being adapted into distinct gravity conditions. The concept developed for a common design is capable of being adapted to two (2) different layout configurations for a common habitat in a safe haven design: (#1) a habitat that could be used both as a deep space transport in micro gravity and on Mars surface partial gravity; and (#2) a habitat that could be used both as a deep space transport in artificial gravity and on Mars surface partial gravity. These designs have the potential to diminish manufacturing time and cost, but also reducing crew training time increasing crew adaptability to their habitation and gravity condition.

Paola M Gonzalez Marquez↗
NASA NTRS2018

Mars Habitat Commonality: CPP-HAB

This proposal addresses the challenge to create a habitation system that has commonality in both the in-space and surface habitat designs so the crew will be familiar with the layout, function, and location of everything in the surface habitat when they arrive on Mars.

Michael Fox↗
NASA NTRS2018

Mars Transit/Surface Habitat Commonality Studies

- Perform fundamental research into biomechanics and human performance at variable gravities using the unique capabilities of underwater simulation - Microgravity - Lunar - Mars - Create limited habitat simulation with various task simulators which can be adapted across different gravities - Tie into detailed design of variable gravity habitat by leveraging senior capstone course

David Akin↗
NASA NTRS2016

Sizing a Common Habitat for Multiple Environments and Mission Durations

A human mission to Mars and other deep space destinations will require a consistent habitation strategy that applies to disparate environments preferably using multiples of identical hardware. The crew will endure high-g forces during launch, microgravity during transit, and various partial gravities on the destination planet, moon, or asteroid. Habitable volume will likely need to be broken up into smaller modules that do not exceed the capacity of launch vehicles and entry-descent-landing technologies. Though it may be possible to design a different unique, optimized habitat for each environment that the crew may encounter, it is more likely that space agencies and other mission sponsors will only have the resources to develop and produce single multi-use hardware that can be used equally well in all environments, with minimal adaptation by the crew. When sizing habitable volume, mission duration and number of crew become important factors to consider. For example, a pressurized rover cabin may only need to support two crew members for a few days at a time, requiring less volume than a habitat that must support the same number of persons for an entire year. In this study the authors consider constraining factors such as launch vehicle capacity, mission duration, crew size, and Mars lander capacity and study how to divide total pressurized volume, subsystems, equipment, consumables, and supplies into multiple manifests. Preference has been given to solutions that use multiples of identical modules over unique optimized volumes. For example at one extreme, can all the habitat pressure vessels, logistic modules, Mars ascent stage cabins, rover cabins, and airlocks be constructed from multiples of the same small-diameter cylindrical modules? On the other extreme, can logistics, habitation volume, mobility, all be enclosed in a single monolithic volume habitat design? Though there may be advantages and disadvantages to either extreme, the conclusion of this study is that most functions can be distilled into two sizes for hardware: multiples of large diameter modules that generally stay in one place, and multiples of smaller volume cabins that can be moved around or function as cockpits for ascent stages, support vehicles, rovers, airlocks, and logistics delivery.

Howe, A Scott↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Fabrication of Gecko Mobility Aids for Deep Space Exploration

Spacecraft large enough for crew to move around inside them have traditionally used handrails and foot restraints to enable crew mobility. The mass of this hardware can become significant in large spacecraft such as ISS or a Mars Transit Habitat. The Common Habitat study also determined that handrails and foot restraints in a multi-gravity habitat are trip hazards when the habitat is in a gravity environment. ISS crew have noted risks of breaking ankles and wrists when using handrails for translation and have noted places where not enough handrails are present. Robotic gecko-derived grippers developed by JPL to retrieve satellites can be adapted to crew-worn pads that can adhere to surfaces to enable crew translation in microgravity. This project will fabricate prototypes of crew clothing augmented with gecko pads.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Crew Seat for Human Exploration in Multiple Gravity Environments

This work attempts to develop a single crew seating solution that is applicable across a range of gravity environments encountered by spacecraft proposed in several conceptual spacecraft architectures. All of these spacecraft will need to provide some sort of stationary accommodation for the crew for performing various activities such as work in science laboratories, maintenance and repair facilities, medical care facilities, and spacecraft operations centers, as well as for basic habitation in crew quarters, entertainment / relaxation facilities, and crew dining facilities. Depending on the spacecraft or architecture, this stationary accommodation may be experienced continuously in microgravity, such as would be the case for the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. Alternately, it could be in continuous lunar or Martian gravity, such as the Common Habitat base camps. It could experience fractional gravity, such as a Pressurized Rover for In-Space Missions at a Near Earth Asteroid or one of the Martian moons. It could alternate between artificial gravity and microgravity, such as the Nautilus-X. It could alternate between microgravity and lunar or Martian gravity, such as the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System or the Blue Origin Blue Moon Block 2 Human Landing System. Or it could be in continuous Earth gravity, such as ground trainer systems. Prior human spaceflight systems for stationary accommodation have been focused on microgravity applications. These systems have their own limitations and cannot be used in a gravity environment. A public crowdsourcing campaign generated dozens of ideas, which ultimately generated a Gecko Mobility Aids system for crew translation and the Multi-Gravity Crew Seat (MGCS) for stationary accommodation. The MGCS functions in gravity as a traditional terrestrial seat, performing functions of load for the overall body and forearms, as well as head and neck load relief while positioning the body within range of an intended task. In microgravity, the MGCS functions as a body restraint, securing the body against inadvertent drifting by applying a restraining pressure at the front and back of the thighs, shoulders, and back. The initial MGCS concept was developed in a NASA hackathon and was refined through a review of dozens of terrestrial seating styles. Additionally, a review of anthropometry and biomechanics data related to the neutral body posture was conducted to help inform the microgravity configuration of the MGCS. A series of CAD models were iteratively developed, with subject matter expert reviews leading to design improvements. A scale model was constructed and used with a humanoid model to demonstrate MGCS accommodation of a human-like body in both gravity and microgravity modes. Work to develop a full-scale protype of the MGCS is discussed, including design and fabrication of the headrest, arm rest, seat back, seat pan, seat base, and the conversion mechanisms. A 1-g human-in-the-loop evaluation of the prototype assessed the acceptability of performing seated activities in the MGCS, collecting data on the usability, comfort, and ease of ingress/egress. Based on the evaluation results, design modifications needed for reduced gravity testing are documented and initial work is indicated for a reduced gravity test plan.

Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
DOE OSTI2024

KBase Narrative - Draft Genome of Exiguobacterium indicum strain LL15

Exiguobacterium indicum has often reported from a wide variety of environmental samples, ranging from extreme to common habitats. Here we report the 3.1-Mb draft genome of E. indicum strain LL15, discovered during an investigation of freshwater lakes in residential-urban environments.

Cooper, Joshua [Northern Kentucky University, Depa↗
NASA NTRS2004

Impact-shocked rocks--insights into Archean and extraterrestrial microbial habitats (and sites for prebiotic chemistry?)

Impact-shocked gneiss shocked to greater than 10 GPa in the Haughton impact structure in the Canadian High Arctic has an approximately 25-times greater pore surface area than unshocked rocks. These pore spaces provide microhabitats for a diversity of heterotrophic microorganisms and in the near-surface environment of the rocks, where light levels are sufficient, cyanobacteria. Shocked rocks provide a moisture retaining, UV protected microenvironment. During the Archean, when impact fluxes were more than two orders of magnitude higher than today, the shocked-rock habitat was one of the most common terrestrial habitats and might have provided a UV-shielded refugium for primitive life. These potential habitats are in high abundance on Mars where impact crater habitats could have existed over geologic time periods of billions of years, suggesting that impact-shocked rocks are important sites to search for biomolecules in extraterrestrial life detection strategies. In addition to being favourable sites for life, during the prebiotic period of planetary history impact-shocked rocks might have acted as a site for the concentration of reactants for prebiotic syntheses. c2004 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evolution, Chemical↗
DOE OSTI2023

Raccoon spatial ecology in the rural southeastern United States

The movement ecology of raccoons varies widely across habitats with important implications for the management of zoonotic diseases such as rabies. However, the spatial ecology of raccoons remains poorly understood in many regions of the United States, particularly in the southeast. To better understand the spatial ecology of raccoons in the southeastern US, we investigated the role of sex, season, and habitat on monthly raccoon home range and core area sizes in three common rural habitats (bottomland hardwood, upland pine, and riparian forest) in South Carolina, USA. From 2018–2022, we obtained 264 monthly home ranges from 46 raccoons. Mean monthly 95% utilization distribution (UD) sizes ranged from 1.05 ± 0.48 km 2 (breeding bottomland females) to 5.69 ± 3.37 km 2 (fall riparian males) and mean monthly 60% UD sizes ranged from 0.25 ± 0.15 km 2 (breeding bottomland females) to 1.59 ± 1.02 km 2 (summer riparian males). Males maintained home range and core areas ~2–5 times larger than females in upland pine and riparian habitat throughout the year, whereas those of bottomland males were only larger than females during the breeding season. Home ranges and core areas of females did not vary across habitats, whereas male raccoons had home ranges and core areas ~2–3 times larger in upland pine and riparian compared to bottomland hardwood throughout much of the year. The home ranges of males in upland pine and riparian are among the largest recorded for raccoons in the United States. Such large and variable home ranges likely contribute to elevated risk of zoonotic disease spread by males in these habitats. These results can be used to inform disease mitigation strategies in the southeastern United States.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2018

Arog Dual Purpose Habitat

Vision and Mission Statement Commonality of design between a space transit habitat and Mars surface habitat has the potential to reduce mission cost and risk by reducing crew training and increasing efficiency on arrival. Using the diverse array of talent and expertise available at the University of Michigan, BLiSS will explore the concept of commonality on every level of the design. System Definition We will design a habitation system that will house a human crew on either the Martian surface or a deep space transit. The system will be designed with a high degree of commonality between the two configurations. The team will validate the design through analysis and the construction of full scale mockups.

Nilton De Oliveira Renno↗