SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Size”

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 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Parametric Assessment of Lunar and Mars Ascent Vehicle Synergy

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has long had a focus on the human exploration of space, starting with Earth orbit, progressing to the Moon, and looking forward to Mars and other deep space destinations. With current priorities aiming toward a return to the Lunar surface in 2024 as part of an extended exploration campaign that will prepare the way for the first crewed mission to Mars, it is timely to examine possible commonalities between the Lunar and Martian mission architectures, particularly in the vehicle systems. One area of potential similarity lies within the ascent phase of the missions; at a first look, the initial Artemis missions to return to the Moon and a short-duration surface stay option for a Mars mission appear similar in several regards, especially in regards to the selection of the crew size, duration of crewed flight, and general subsystem functionality. This paper will take a closer look at these similarities as they apply to the respective ascent vehicles for each planetary body and how those similarities could enable synergies between the Lunar and Mars ascent vehicles of both missions.

Human Exploration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Transit Life Support, Open, Closed, or Mixed?

Brief human space missions such as Apollo and shuttle used material storage to provide life support but long missions such as a trip to Mars and back are expected to use a recycling life support system similar to the one on the International Space Station (ISS). Mars transit life support design is investigated considering requirements, performance, reliability, cost, and risk. The launch cost, crew size, and reliability are variable parameters that affect the life support design choice. Greater launch cost and larger crew size tend to make recycling more cost-effective than resupply. A higher reliability requirement tends to favor resupply over recycling. A mixed system combining direct supply of minimal survival materials for very high reliability with additional materials provided by recycling systems seems the best choice.

Mars life support↗

NASA NTRS2025

Trade Space Analyses: Balancing Crew and Mission Design Parameters-Candidate Mars Master Task List

In 2020, the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Agency’s Federated Board requested an assessment to develop a methodology for trade space analysis comparing crew size for Mars missions against mission design parameters. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted an assessment to develop a methodology for systematic, repeatable trade space analysis for crew size and developed an initial set of human performance models and a list of candidate crew tasks for NASA’s first mission to Mars. This report contains list of candidate crew tasks for Mars.

Crew Duties and Tasks↗

NASA NTRS1979

STS mission duration enhancement study: (orbiter habitability)

Habitability improvements for early flights that could be implemented with minimum impact were investigated. These included: (1) launching the water dispenser in the on-orbit position instead of in a locker; (2) the sleep pallet concept; and (3) suction cup foot restraints. Past studies that used volumetric terms and requirements for crew size versus mission duration were reviewed and common definitions of key habitability terms were established. An accurately dimensioned drawing of the orbiter mid-deck, locating all of the known major elements was developed. Finally, it was established that orbiter duration and crew size can be increased with minimum modification and impact to the crew module. Preliminary concepts of the aft med-deck, external versions of expanded tunnel adapters (ETA), and interior concepts of ETA-3 were developed and comparison charts showing the various factors of volume, weight, duration, size, impact to orbiter, and number of sleep stations were generated.

Carlson, A. D.↗

NASA NTRS2024

Humans to Mars, But How Many? Using Training Qualifications Modeling to Inform Number of Crew

Missions to Mars will differ from all previous human spaceflight missions in that the crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner due to the long communication delays, making the decision on crew size critical to mission success. To support National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decision makers, NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) developed a quantitative methodology for assessing the number of crew necessary to meet primary mission objectives and respond to unforeseen failures based on modeling of NASA’s crew training qualifications. We present results of a custom-built model of a Mars crew qualification and responsibility matrix (CQRM) and discuss the implications on trade space analysis of Mars mission crew size.

Mars↗

NASA NTRS2024

Humans to Mars, But How Many? Using Training Qualification Modeling to Inform Number of Crew

Mars↗

NASA NTRS1981

Development of a preprototype Sabatier CO2 reduction subsystem

A lightweight, quick starting reactor utilizes a highly active and physically durable methanation catalyst composed of ruthenium on alumina. The use of this improved catalyst permits a single straight through plug flow design with an average lean component H2/CO2 conversion efficiency of over 99% over a range of H2/CO2 molar ratios of 1.8 to 5 while operating with flows equivalent to a crew size of one person steadystate to 3 persons cyclical. The reactor requires no heater operation after start-up even during simulated 55 minute lightside/39 minute darkside orbital operation over the above range of molar ratios and crew loadings. Subsystem performance was proven by parametric testing and endurance testing over a wide range of crew sizes and metabolic loadings. The subsystem's operation and performance is controlled by a microprocessor and displayed on a nineteen inch multi-colored cathode ray tube.

Kleiner, G. N.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Room to Live: the sizing of Lunar and Martian Habitats

In order for man to return to space or extra terrestrial bodies for long duration missions it is important that adequate habitat volume be defined early to avoid costly delays and redesign. To properly define a habitat volume two major factors need to be considered. The first factor is the free or open space. This is the space that allows the crew room to move about the habitat. This space will vary based on crew size and length of the mission. The second major factor is the stowage space required for equipment and supplies. This includes both fixed volumes and consumables. Fixed volumes include items such as tools, communication equipment, Advanced Life Support (ALS) equipment, and support equipment. Consumables include items like filters, food, water and oxygen. This space is also dependent on crew size and mission length. A review of past missions into alien environments, such as deep sea habitats as well as space based habitats will be used to validate the assumption made in this paper. Once these key factors are defined trades must be run to optimize the overall volume of a habitat. This includes trades of disposable vs. reusable for items such as clothing, dishes, and water. Another factor to consider is the availability of in situ resources to aid in the construction of the habitat structure as well as re-supply of consumable items. A review of past missions into alien environments, such as deep sea habitats as well as space based habitats will be used to validate the assumption made in this paper. The result is a habitat sizing tool to provide a first order estimate of habitat volumes for extended mission to the surface of the moon and Mars.

McGregor, Walter L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis exploration plan will progress from initial Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) landers to human landings to an established surface infrastructure supporting four crew for surface missions of a month or greater. NASA teams are currently working with partners to define the surface assets that will comprise this infrastructure, including habitation and laboratory facilities. However, design engineers often have limited insight into the laboratory capabilities needed inside a pressurized habitat or the demands such a facility will place upon crew availability. The Space Shuttle STS-94 Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL-1) mission is used as an intravehicular activity science analog for the Surface Habitat. The STS-94 primary physical science instruments and crew activity in support of physical science investigations will be examined. Based on recent reference concepts for the Surface Habitat, options for incorporating the instruments and options for dividing physical science tasks among the Surface Habitat crew are discussed, based on STS94 crew tasks and assumptions for Surface Habitat operations. Crew size considerations are raised along with recommendations to reassess some of the current assumptions. Having shown that STS-94’s physical science investigations can be applied to a lunar surface mission, recommendations are made for increased attention to pressurized laboratory objectives, capabilities, and crew size.

Surface Habitat↗

NASA NTRS2019

Common Habitat for Long Duration Transit and Surface Operations

This concept is based on the Skylab II concept, which proposes using a SLS propellant tank as the primary structure of a habitat. Common Habitat takes this a step further, proposing an interior architecture that is equally viable as a lunar surface hab, transit hab, and Mars surface hab, thus enabling a single development to support all three long duration habitat roles. Common Habitat has been pursued by the PI and co-investigators at MSFC and other centers in a spare time / funding available basis, often with heavy student intern support. Student resources have developed preliminary concepts, but these models must be refined to reflect accurate vehicle subsystems, utilities, stowage, workstations, and other crew systems. This investigation applies NASA civil servant and contractor expertise to correct errors in the most recent student concepts in order to prepare them for future human-in-the-loop evaluations to determine the most viable configuration for a Common Habitat. In prior studies there was never an opportunity to trade both crew size and internal orientation. Prior work has been a series of point designs with inconsistent design constraints, making apples to apples comparisons impossible. The most recent student work produced CAD models of four habitat variants for future use in a trade study, but the student products contain model construction and geometry errors, inaccurate subsystems design and placement, and unrealistic structural elements and outfitting. These must be corrected before the models can be moved into a VR environment for humanin- the-loop testing. Through consultation with SMEs throughout the Agency, the fidelity of these designs will be upgraded to a level of quality sufficient to make a comparative analysis of crew size sensitivity and internal orientation. The product of this activity is four upgraded CAD models, each reflecting a different configuration of the Common Habitat. One is a horizontal configuration using the full length of the SLS LOX tank. One is a vertical configuration using the same tank dimensions. The third is a horizontal configuration using a truncated SLS LOX tank (half the barrel length). The fourth is a vertical configuration of the half-length SLS LOX tank.

Howard, Robert L.↗

NASA NTRS2002

So Much Depends Upon a Pickup Truck

An anecdote from the author's own career as a researcher stresses the importance of becoming thoroughly familiar with a subject under study, in order to avoid overlooking obvious factors. In one study he conducted in Israel, he found that pickup truck size sometimes determined work crew size.

Laufer, Alexander↗

NASA NTRS2019

Exploration Toilet Integration Challenges on the International Space Station

On the International Space Station (ISS) there are currently two toilets. One is located in the Russian segment's Service Module and the other is located in the U.S. segment's Node 3. A new Exploration Toilet will be integrated next to the existing Node 3 Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC). The Toilet will be evaluated as a technology demonstration for a minimum of three years. In addition, it will support an increase in ISS crew size due to Commercial Crew flights to ISS. The Toilet is designed to minimize mass and volume for Orion, the first Exploration vehicle. Currently ISS does not have a designated volume for an additional Toilet. Furthermore, operating the Toilet on ISS presents a different set of challenges as it must integrate into existing vehicle systems for urine processing. To integrate the Toilet on ISS, a suite of hardware was developed to provide mechanical, electrical, data, and fluid interfaces. This paper will provide an overview of the Toilet Integration Hardware design as well as the engineering challenges, crew interface provisions and vehicle integration complexities encountered during the concept and design phases.

Integration Hardware↗

NASA NTRS2019

Exploration Toilet Integration Challenges on the International Space Station

On the International Space Station (ISS) there are currently two toilets. One is located in the Russian Service Module and the other is located in the U.S. segment's Node 3. A new Exploration Toilet will be integrated next to the existing Node 3 Waste and Hygiene Compartment (WHC). The Toilet will be evaluated as a technology demonstration for a minimum of three years. In addition, it will support an increase in ISS crew size due to Commercial Crew flights to ISS. The Toilet is designed to minimize mass and volume for Orion, the first Exploration vehicle. Currently ISS does not have a designated volume for an additional Toilet. Furthermore, operating the Toilet on ISS presents a different set of challenges as it must integrate into existing vehicle systems for urine processing. To integrate the Toilet on ISS, a suite of hardware was developed to provide mechanical, electrical, data, and fluid interfaces. This paper will provide an overview of the Toilet Integration Hardware design as well as the engineering challenges, crew interface provisions and vehicle integration complexities encountered during the concept and design phases.

Node 3↗

NASA NTRS2020

Design Variants of a Common Habitat for Moon and Mars Exploration

The Common Habitat is a long-duration habitat concept based on the Skylab II architecture that leverages a single, multi-destination design applicable to microgravity Mars transit, 1/6 g lunar surface, 3/8 g Mars surface, and 1 g Earth. A trade study for the Common Habitat will address vertical versus horizontal internal orientation and a crew size of four or eight crew. This has resulted in the creation of four variants of the Common Habitat: Four Crew Horizontal Configuration, Four Crew Vertical Configuration, Eight Crew Horizontal Configuration, and Eight Crew Vertical Configuration. Design guidelines that shaped the four configurations are discussed, including: mission duration, destinations/missions, pressure vessel, hatches and docking, subsystems and utilities, lander integration and offloading, and eight-crew extensibility. Functional capabilities for crew-related systems are also discussed, including: private habitation, meal preparation, meal consumption, medical operations, exercise, group socialization and recreation, human waste collection, hygiene, logistics, spacecraft monitoring and commanding, mission planning, robotics and teleoperation, scientific research, maintenance and fabrication, and EVA. Each of the four Common Habitat designs will be presented, with a deck-by-deck description of each workstation, crew station, or subsystem along with an assessment of its degree of compliance with the guidelines and functional capabilities. Finally, forward work will be identified that will down-select a single Common Habitat. This includes multiple analyses that will be performed on the four variants, a down-selection process, and design refinement goals for the selected variant.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRS1987

Assessment of mixed fleet potential for space station launch and assembly

Reductions in expected STS flight rates of the Space Shuttle since the 51-L accident raise concerns about the ability of available launch capacity to meet both payload-to-orbit and crew rotation requirements for the Space Station. In addition, it is believed that some phases of Station build-up could be expedited using unmanned launch systems with significantly greater lift capacity than the STS. Examined is the potential use of expendable launch vehicles (ELVs), yet-to-be-developed unmanned shuttle-derived vehicles (SDVs), and international launch vehicles for meeting overall launch requirements to meet Space Station program objectives as defined by the 1986 Critical Evaluation Task Force (CETF). The study concludes that use of non-STS transportation can help meet several important program objectives as well as reduce the total number of STS flights. It also finds, however, that reduction of Space Station-dedicated STS flights below 8 per year forces a reduction in Station crew size assuming the CETF 90 day crew stay time baseline and seriously impairs scientific utilization of the Station.

Deryder, L. J.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Geostationary platform study: Advanced ESGP/evolutionary SSF accommodation study

The implications on the evolutionary space station of accommodating geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) facilities are assessed. These facilities include unmanned satellites and platforms, manned elements, and transportation and servicing vehicles/elements. The latest existing definitions of typical unmanned GEO facilities and transportation and servicing vehicles/elements are utilized. The physical design, functional design, and operations implications at the space station are determined. Various concepts of the space station from past studies are utilized ranging from the IOC Multifunction Space Station to a branched transportation node space station and the implications of accommodating the GEO infrastructure at each type are assessed. Where possible, parametric data is provided to show the implications of variations in sizes and quantities of elements, launch rates, crew sizes, etc. The use of advanced automation, robotics equipment, and an efficient mix of manned/automated support for accomplishing necessary activities at the space station are identified and assessed. The products of this study are configuration sketches, resource requirements, trade studies, and parametric data.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1990

Geostationary platform study: Advanced ESGP/evolutionary SSF accommodation study

The implications on the evolutionary space station of accommodating geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) facilities including unmanned satellites and platforms, manned elements, and transportation and servicing vehicles/elements. The latest existing definitions of typical unmanned GEO facilities and transportation and servicing vehicles/elements are utilized. The physical design, functional design, and operations implications at the space station are determined. Various concepts of the space station from past studies are utilized ranging from the IOC Multifunction Space Station to a branched transportation node space station, and the implications of the accommodation the GEO infrastructure of each type are assessed. Where possible, parametric data are provided to show the implications of variations in sizes and quantities of elements, launch rates, crew sizes, etc. The use of advanced automation, robotics equipment, and an efficient mix of manned/automated support for accomplishing necessary activities at the space station are identified and assessed. The products of this study are configuration sketches, resource requirements, trade studies, and parametric data.

Source record↗