Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Lunar Laboratory”

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 NTRS2004

Lunar Receiving Laboratory Project History

As early as 1959, the Working Group on Lunar Exploration within NASA advocated that 'one of the prime objectives of the first lunar landing mission should be the collection of samples for return to Earth, where they could be subjected to detailed study and analysis.' Within NASA, neither this group nor any other scientists working with the Agency were concerned about back contamination issues. Outside of NASA, back contamination concerns had been raised as early as 1960. Although NASA did not seem to pay any attention to the concerns at that time, the scientific community continued to be interested in the topic. In 1962 and again in 1963, as the Apollo Program loomed large, further discussions were held. These early discussions of back contamination did not make their way into NASA's administration, however, and when Manned Spacecraft Center personnel began to articulate early concepts for the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL), the back contamination issue was not considered. Once this concern became a major focus, however, the LRL's development became increasingly complex. This is the history of that development.

Mangus, Susan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Rapid Assessment of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module

Johnson Space Center has piloted an innovation team known as the Forge to perform rapid turnaround, concurrent engineering studies. The Forge is intended to be able to pull together a team of strategically selected domain experts to innovatively solve a specified problem within a short period of time. The Forge’s inaugural project was the development of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module concept. The lab module is intended as an option for the NASA Lunar Architecture Team and may allow for increased science productivity and return on investment than with only the Surface Habitat. The Forge team developed two concepts, a stationary laboratory and a mobile laboratory. Human factors evaluations have been conducted to determine the acceptability of the resulting design concepts. The human factors evaluations conducted include a card sort evaluation of the laboratories by science discipline and the System Usability Scale (SUS). The card sort focused subject matter expert expectations for the relative positioning of the laboratory functional areas, determining whether a given lab area should be adjacent to, or separated from, another. The SUS focused on layout efficiency. Both used human factors personnel and both life and physical scientists as subject matter experts. Each of these evaluations will focus primarily on objective data with limited subjective comments, reducing the time required for processing responses. The results of the card sort and SUS evaluations and their implications will be discussed. Based on the evaluation data, an overall acceptability of the Lunar Surface Laboratory Module produced by the Forge study can be determined. Lessons learned and recommendations for future use of human factors rapid assessment processes in early design trades will also be provided.

Forge↗
NASA NTRS2017

One Giant Leap to Protect All Mankind: An Overview of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Motivation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy charged the nation "to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth." Eight years later, the Apollo 11 astronauts splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after this first 8-day journey to the moon. As humans had never ventured to another extraterrestrial body, the U.S. government noted the great uncertainty associated with the unknown exposures related to this historic mission. Overview. With this uncertainty in mind, a newly formed Interagency Committee on Back Contamination (ICBC) was established to review the potential for lunar contaminants and establish the prevention of their escape into the biosphere during crew and sample recovery operations from the floating command module to the mobile quarantine facility on the recovery ship and return to the Johnson Space Center. Significance. As a result of the ICBC recommendations, in 1966 NASA planned and built the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The LRL served a great role in service of human space exploration to quarantine Apollo crewmembers, their space vehicles, and the lunar samples collected. Almost an afterthought in the space race to the Moon, the 83,000-square-foot LRL was designed and completed in 1967 for $7.8 million. The core purpose of the LRL was "to protect the public's health, agriculture, and other living resources; to provide lunar sample distribution to approved scientific investigators; and to preserve the scientific integrity of the lunar samples at all times." Its layout was comprised of three major zones: a quarantined Crew Area, a separate but also quarantined Sample Operations Area, and a Support and Administration Area outside the controlled biological barrier. This facility required trained personnel to live and perform within it for several weeks post-flight, to include astronaut crewmembers, flight surgeons, scientists, and vehicle recovery engineers. The LRL holds memories of these historic events but has since been repurposed for NASA's medical and environmental sciences activities, in what is now known as Building 37. As we approach its 50th anniversary, the LRL story will end in demolition as NASA advances its facilities for the next steps in human exploration of space. Learning Objectives: 1. To capture the historical relevance of the NASA Lunar Receiving Laboratory 2. To understand the requirements of receiving crew and samples from the moon for the first time 3. To describe the facility capabilities in protection of public health.

Hayes, Judith↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Assessment of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module

Johnson Space Center has piloted an innovation team known as the Forge to perform rapid turnaround, concurrent engineering studies. The Forge is intended to be able to pull together a team of strategically selected domain experts to innovatively solve a specified problem within a short period of time. The Forge’s inaugural project was the development of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module concept. The lab module is intended as an option for the NASA Lunar Architecture Team and may allow for increased science productivity and return on investment than with only the Surface Habitat. The Forge team developed two concepts, a stationary laboratory and a mobile laboratory. Human factors evaluations have been conducted to determine the acceptability of the resulting design concepts. The human factors evaluations conducted include a card sort evaluation of the laboratories by science discipline and the System Usability Scale (SUS). The card sort is focused subject matter expert expectations for the relative positioning of the laboratory functional areas, determining whether a given lab area should be adjacent to, or separated from, another. The SUS will focus on layout efficiency. Both will use human factors personnel and both life and physical scientists as subject matter experts. Each of these evaluations will focus primarily on objective data with limited subjective comments, reducing the time required for processing responses. The results of the card sort and SUS evaluations and their implications will be discussed. Based on the evaluation data, an overall acceptability of the Lunar Surface Laboratory Module produced by the Forge study can be determined. Lessons learned and recommendations for future use of human factors rapid assessment processes in early design trades will also be provided.

Human Factors↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evolution of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory to the Astromaterial Sample Curation Facility: Technical Tensions Between Containment and Cleanliness, Between Particulate and Organic Cleanliness

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) was planned and constructed in the 1960s to support the Apollo program in the context of landing on the Moon and safely returning humans. The enduring science return from that effort is a result of careful curation of planetary materials. Technical decisions for the first facility included sample handling environment (vacuum vs inert gas), and instruments for making basic sample assessment, but the most difficult decision, and most visible, was stringent biosafety vs ultra-clean sample handling. Biosafety required handling of samples in negative pressure gloveboxes and rooms for containment and use of sterilizing protocols and animal/plant models for hazard assessment. Ultra-clean sample handling worked best in positive pressure nitrogen environment gloveboxes in positive pressure rooms, using cleanable tools of tightly controlled composition. The requirements for these two objectives were so different, that the solution was to design and build a new facility for specific purpose of preserving the scientific integrity of the samples. The resulting Lunar Curatorial Facility was designed and constructed, from 1972-1979, with advice and oversight by a very active committee comprised of lunar sample scientists. The high precision analyses required for planetary science are enabled by stringent contamination control of trace elements in the materials and protocols of construction (e.g., trace element screening for paint and flooring materials) and the equipment used in sample handling and storage. As other astromaterials, especially small particles and atoms, were added to the collections curated, the technical tension between particulate cleanliness and organic cleanliness was addressed in more detail. Techniques for minimizing particulate contamination in sample handling environments use high efficiency air filtering techniques typically requiring organic sealants which offgas. Protocols for reducing adventitious carbon on sample handling surfaces often generate particles. Further work is needed to achieve both minimal particulate and adventitious carbon contamination. This paper will discuss these facility topics and others in the historical context of nearly 50 years' curation experience for lunar rocks and regolith, meteorites, cosmic dust, comet particles, solar wind atoms, and asteroid particles at Johnson Space Center.

Allton, J. H.↗
NASA NTRS2011

We Did This Before - The Lunar Receiving Laboratory (1969-1972)

The six Apollo missions to the lunar surface, between 1969 and 1972, returned 2,196 individual rock, soil and core samples, with a total mass of 381.69 kg. The astronauts selected samples, photographed the rocks and soils prior to collection, packaged them in uniquely identified containers, and transported them to the Lunar Module

Allen, Carlton↗
NASA NTRS1974

Electrical conductivity of lunar surface rocks - Laboratory measurements and implications for lunar interior temperatures

Results are reported for laboratory measurements of the dc and low-frequency ac electrical conductivity of three lunar rocks with ferrous iron contents of 5 to 26 wt %. The measurements were made at temperatures ranging from 20 to 1000 C, and Mossbauer spectroscopy was used to determine the dependence of electrical conductivity on furnace atmosphere. It is found that the magnitude of electrical conductivity generally increases with increasing iron content. A comparison of the data on these samples with data on terrestrial olivines and pyroxenes shows that the electrical conductivity of anhydrous silicate minerals is influenced primarily by the concentration, oxidation state, and distribution of iron, while the silicate crystal structure is only of secondary importance. Lunar interior temperatures are deduced from experimental lunar conductivity profiles, and the resulting temperature-depth profiles are found to be consistent with those calculated for two different lunar evolutionary models as well as with various experimental constraints.

Schwerer, F. C.↗