Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crewed Spacecrafts”

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

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Fate of Trace Contaminants in a Crewed Spacecraft Cabin Environment

Trace chemical contaminants produced via equipment offgassing, human metabolic sources, and vehicle operations are removed from the cabin atmosphere by active contamination control equipment and incidental removal by other air quality control equipment. The fate of representative trace contaminants commonly observed in spacecraft cabin atmospheres is explored. Removal mechanisms are described and predictive mass balance techniques are reviewed. Results from the predictive techniques are compared to cabin air quality analysis results. Considerations are discussed for an integrated trace contaminant control architecture suitable for long duration crewed space exploration missions.

Perry, Jay L.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Basic results of medical examinations of Soyuz spacecraft crew members

Weightlessness, hypokinesia and intense activity of crew members caused changes in human physiological functions during prolonged space flight as expressed in unusual diurnal rhythms. Microclimate, radiation and the nervous emotional state were not of significance in emergence of human body response reactions.

Gurovskiy, N. N.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Fire suppression in human-crew spacecraft

Fire extinguishment agents range from water and foam in early-design spacecraft (Halon 1301 in the present Shuttle) to carbon dioxide proposed for the Space Station Freedom. The major challenge to spacecraft fire extinguishment design and operations is from the micro-gravity environment, which minimizes natural convection and profoundly influences combustion and extinguishing agent effectiveness, dispersal, and post-fire cleanup. Discussed here are extinguishment in microgravity, fire-suppression problems anticipated in future spacecraft, and research needs and opportunities.

Friedman, Robert↗
NASA NTRS1993

Spacecraft crew procedures from paper to computers

Large volumes of paper are launched with each Space Shuttle Mission that contain step-by-step instructions for various activities that are to be performed by the crew during the mission. These instructions include normal operational procedures and malfunction or contingency procedures and are collectively known as the Flight Data File (FDF). An example of nominal procedures would be those used in the deployment of a satellite from the Space Shuttle; a malfunction procedure would describe actions to be taken if a specific problem developed during the deployment. A new FDF and associated system is being created for Space Station Freedom. The system will be called the Space Station Flight Data File (SFDF). NASA has determined that the SFDF will be computer-based rather than paper-based. Various aspects of the SFDF are discussed.

Oneal, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2004

Next Generation Spacecraft, Crew Exploration Vehicle

This special bibliography includes research on reusable launch vehicles, aerospace planes, shuttle replacement, crew/cargo transfer vehicle, related X-craft, orbital space plane, and next generation launch technology.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Integrated System Design for Air Revitalization in Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft

The capabilities of NASA's existing environmental control and life support (ECLS) system designs are inadequate for future human space initiatives that involve long-duration space voyages and interplanetary missions. This paper discusses the concept of an integrated system of CO2 removal and trace contaminant control units that utilizes novel gas separation and purification techniques and optimized thermal and mechanical design, for future spacecraft. The integration process will enhance the overall life and economics of the existing systems by eliminating multiple mechanical devices with moving parts.

Mulloth, Lila↗
NASA NTRS2012

Handling Qualities Implications for Crewed Spacecraft Operations

Abstract Handling qualities embody those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role. These same qualities are as critical, if not more so, in the operation of spacecraft. A research, development, test, and evaluation process was put into effect to identify, understand, and interpret the engineering and human factors principles which govern the pilot-vehicle dynamic system as they pertain to space exploration missions and tasks. Toward this objective, piloted simulations were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center for earth-orbit proximity operations and docking and lunar landing. These works provide broad guidelines for the design of spacecraft to exhibit excellent handling characteristics. In particular, this work demonstrates how handling qualities include much more than just stability and control characteristics of a spacecraft or aircraft. Handling qualities are affected by all aspects of the pilot-vehicle dynamic system, including the motion, visual and aural cues of the vehicle response as the pilot performs the required operation or task. A holistic approach to spacecraft design, including the use of manual control, automatic control, and pilot intervention/supervision is described. The handling qualities implications of design decisions are demonstrated using these pilot-in-the-loop evaluations of docking operations and lunar landings.

Bailey, Randall E.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spacecraft Thermal Management

In the 21st century, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Russian Federal Space Agency, the National Space Agency of Ukraine, the China National Space Administration, and many other organizations representing spacefaring nations shall continue or newly implement robust space programs. Additionally, business corporations are pursuing commercialization of space for enabling space tourism and capital business ventures. Future space missions are likely to include orbiting satellites, orbiting platforms, space stations, interplanetary vehicles, planetary surface missions, and planetary research probes. Many of these missions will include humans to conduct research for scientific and terrestrial benefits and for space tourism, and this century will therefore establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth s confines. Other missions will not include humans, but will be autonomous (e.g., satellites, robotic exploration), and will also serve to support the goals of exploring space and providing benefits to Earth s populace. This section focuses on thermal management systems for human space exploration, although the guiding principles can be applied to unmanned space vehicles as well. All spacecraft require a thermal management system to maintain a tolerable thermal environment for the spacecraft crew and/or equipment. The requirements for human rating and the specified controlled temperature range (approximately 275 K - 310 K) for crewed spacecraft are unique, and key design criteria stem from overall vehicle and operational/programatic considerations. These criteria include high reliability, low mass, minimal power requirements, low development and operational costs, and high confidence for mission success and safety. This section describes the four major subsystems for crewed spacecraft thermal management systems, and design considerations for each. Additionally, some examples of specialized or advanced thermal system technologies are presented, which may be enabling to future space missions never before attempted like a crewed mission to Mars.

Hurlbert, Kathryn Miller↗
NASA NTRS2017

An Alternative Approach to Human Servicing of Crewed Earth Orbiting Spacecraft

As crewed spacecraft have grown larger and more complex, they have come to rely on spacewalks, or Extravehicular Activities (EVA), for mission success and crew safety. Typically, these spacecraft maintain all of the hardware and trained personnel needed to perform an EVA on-board at all times. Maintaining this capability requires volume and up-mass for storage of EVA hardware, crew time for ground and on-orbit training, and on-orbit maintenance of EVA hardware. This paper proposes an alternative methodology, utilizing launch on-need hardware and crew to provide EVA capability for space stations in Earth orbit after assembly complete, in the same way that one would call a repairman to fix something at their home. This approach would reduce ground training requirements, save Intravehicular Activity (IVA) crew time in the form of EVA hardware maintenance and on-orbit training, and lead to more efficient EVAs because they would be performed by specialists with detailed knowledge and training stemming from their direct involvement in the development of the EVA. The on-orbit crew would then be available to focus on the immediate response to the failure as well as the day-to-day operations of the spacecraft and payloads. This paper will look at how current unplanned EVAs are conducted, including the time required for preparation, and offer alternatives for future spacecraft. As this methodology relies on the on-time and on-need launch of spacecraft, any space station that utilized this approach would need a robust transportation system including more than one launch vehicle capable of carrying crew. In addition, the fault tolerance of the space station would be an important consideration in how much time was available for EVA preparation after the failure. Each future program would have to weigh the risk of on-time launch against the increase in available crew time for the main objective of the spacecraft.

Mularski, John R.↗
NASA NTRS2017

An Alternative Approach to Human Servicing of Crewed Earth Orbiting Spacecraft

As crewed spacecraft have grown larger and more complex, they have come to rely on spacewalks, or Extravehicular Activities (EVA), for assembly and to assure mission success. Typically, these spacecraft maintain all of the hardware and trained personnel needed to perform an EVA on-board at all times. Maintaining this capability requires up-mass, volume for storage of EVA hardware, crew time for ground and on-orbit training, and on-orbit maintenance of EVA hardware. This paper proposes an alternative methodology, utilizing either launch-on-need hardware and crew or regularly scheduled missions to provide EVA capability for space stations in low Earth orbit after assembly complete. Much the same way that one would call a repairman to fix something at their home these EVAs are dedicated to maintenance and upgrades of the orbiting station. For crew safety contingencies it is assumed the station would be designed such the crew could either solve those issues from inside the spacecraft or use the docked Earth to Orbit vehicles as a return lifeboat, in the same manner as the International Space Station (ISS) which does not rely on EVA for crew safety related contingencies. This approach would reduce ground training requirements for long duration crews, save Intravehicular Activity (IVA) crew time in the form of EVA hardware maintenance and on-orbit training, and lead to more efficient EVAs because they would be performed by specialists with detailed knowledge and training stemming from their direct involvement in the development of the EVA. The on-orbit crew would then be available to focus on the immediate response to any failures such as IVA systems reconfiguration or jumper installation as well as the day-to-day operations of the spacecraft and payloads. This paper will look at how current unplanned EVAs are conducted on ISS, including the time required for preparation, and offer an alternative for future spacecraft. As this methodology relies on the on-time and on-need launch of spacecraft, any space station that utilized this approach would need a robust transportation system, possibly including more than one launch vehicle capable of carrying crew. In addition, the fault tolerance of the future space station would be an important consideration in how much time was available for EVA preparation after the failure. Ideally the fault tolerance of the station would allow for the maintenance tasks to be grouped such that they could be handled by regularly scheduled maintenance visits and not contingency launches. Each future program would have to weigh the risk of on-time launch against the increase in available crew time for the main objective of the spacecraft. This is only one of several ideas that could be used to reduce or eliminate a station's reliance on rapid turnaround EVAs using on-board crew. Others could include having shirt-sleeve access to critical systems or utilizing low pressure temporarily pressurized equipment bays.

Mularski, John R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Integration Approach in Implementing Voice-Control of Future Spacecraft Systems

Crewed spacecraft and habitats of the future will require more automation and autonomy to support complex missions. However, these complex systems require a more efficient command and control input method. Speech recognition along with visual or auditory feedback is an alternative, providing an extra pair of hands and eyes for the crew. Yet, speech recognition demands a highly integrated development approach to ensure a successful system implementation. To ensure the voice control application is developed correctly will require a Human Systems Integration (HSI) approach. This paper provides an insight into the development of a speech/voice control application of a spacecraft system that encompasses automation and autonomy through an HSI approach. Results of the voice control experiment of the Space Shuttle camera system are provided as lessons learned about voice control on a spacecraft. Limitations and challenges of the technology are addressed as well as how HSI can help develop these types of voice control command and control systems.

Voice control↗
NASA NTRS1994

Vulnerability of manned spacecraft to crew loss from orbital debris penetration

Orbital debris growth threatens the survival of spacecraft systems from impact-induced failures. Whereas the probability of debris impact and spacecraft penetration may currently be calculated, another parameter of great interest to safety engineers is the probability that debris penetration will cause actual spacecraft or crew loss. Quantifying the likelihood of crew loss following a penetration allows spacecraft designers to identify those design features and crew operational protocols that offer the highest improvement in crew safety for available resources. Within this study, a manned spacecraft crew survivability (MSCSurv) computer model is developed that quantifies the conditional probability of losing one or more crew members, P(sub loss/pen), following the remote likelihood of an orbital debris penetration into an eight module space station. Contributions to P(sub loss/pen) are quantified from three significant penetration-induced hazards: pressure wall rupture (explosive decompression), fragment-induced injury, and 'slow' depressurization. Sensitivity analyses are performed using alternate assumptions for hazard-generating functions, crew vulnerability thresholds, and selected spacecraft design and crew operations parameters. These results are then used to recommend modifications to the spacecraft design and expected crew operations that quantitatively increase crew safety from orbital debris impacts.

Williamsen, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Flammability Configuration Analysis for Spacecraft Applications

Fire is one of the many potentially catastrophic hazards associated with the operation of crewed spacecraft. A major lesson learned by NASA from the Apollo 204 fire in 1966 was that ignition sources in an electrically powered vehicle should and can be minimized, but can never be eliminated completely. For this reason, spacecraft fire control is based on minimizing potential ignition sources and eliminating materials that can propagate fire. Fire extinguishers are always provided on crewed spacecraft, but are not considered as part of the fire control process. "Eliminating materials that can propagate fire" does not mean eliminating all flammable materials - the cost of designing and building spacecraft using only nonflammable materials is extraordinary and unnecessary. It means controlling the quantity and configuration of such materials to eliminate potential fire propagation paths and thus ensure that any fire would be small, localized, and isolated, and would self-extinguish without harm to the crew. Over the years, NASA has developed many solutions for controlling the configuration of flammable materials (and potentially flammable materials in commercial "off-the-shelf" hardware) so that they can be used safely in air and oxygen-enriched environments in crewed spacecraft. This document describes and explains these design solutions so payload customers and other organizations can use them in designing safe and cost-effective flight hardware. Proper application of these guidelines will produce acceptable flammability configurations for hardware located in any compartment of the International Space Station or other program crewed vehicles and habitats. However, use of these guidelines does not exempt hardware organizations of the responsibility for safety of the hardware under their control.

Pedley, Michael D.↗