Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Module”

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 361 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Development of the European Service Module Propulsion Subsystem for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

2013, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) entered into an international partnership to develop the European Service Module (ESM) for use on NASA's Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), also known as Orion. The MPCV will be used as the principal spacecraft for future human space exploration missions beyond low earth orbit. The ESM Propulsion Subsystem (PSS) is a pressure-fed, bi-propellant propulsion system, being developed by Airbus Defense and Space under contract to ESA. For this effort, NASA is responsible for the traditional role of insight/oversight to ensure that the PSS delivered by Airbus meets all MPCV Program requirements. In addition, the NASA Propulsion team also has some unique responsibilities that are a result of the Implementing Agreement (IA) between NASA and ESA for development of the ESM. These responsibilities include: (1) providing the main engine and Thrust Vector Control (TVC) assembly for the PSS. This is being accomplished through the delta qualification and re-use the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engine and TVC assembly; (2) procurement and delivery of the Auxiliary engines (R-4Ds) for the PSS. These engines are being procured by NASA from Aerojet-Rocketdyne via Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the MPCV, per an Airbus-provided specification; and (3) conducting the integrated systems hot-fire test which will qualify the end-to-end PSS for flight on MPCV. This test is being conducted at the NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) using an Airbus-provided test article known as the Propulsion Qualification Model (PQM).

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quiet Spacecraft Cabin Ventilation Fan Development: Motivation and Context

It is important to control acoustical noise aboard crewed space vehicles and space habitats to provide a satisfactory environment for voice communications, alarm audibility, and restful sleep, and to minimize the risk for hearing loss and annoyance. As with most noise control efforts, it is best to control the noise at the source, and for spaceflight vehicles these are typically the fans associated with the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system. These include air ventilation fans, such as the main air conditioning fan (the ‘cabin fan’), intermodule ventilation (IMV) fans, air revitalization fans (for removal of carbon dioxide and trace contaminates), and thermal cooling fans. Thermal cooling pumps that circulate cooling fluid are another significant noise source in spaceflight vehicles, but these are outside of the scope of this paper. Throughout the history of crewed spaceflight, there have been issues with noise from ECLS ventilation fans. In the Apollo Command Module (CM) the crew would turn off the CM cabin fan once in orbit and use the backup suit-loop fan for ventilation because noise from the cabin fan interfered with communications and was an annoyance. On the Space Shuttle the ventilation system underwent significant redesign, including the addition of ventilation system mufflers, with resulting noise levels that were still too-high for long-duration missions. In the early years of International Space Station (ISS) operations, acoustical noise was one of the top two habitability issues, resulting in significant noise controls (along with significant cost and crew-time impacts) being implemented on-orbit on many fans, with significant noise reductions realized only after replacing noisy fans with fans of a quieter design, funded by the ISS Program. And, with the spaceflight vehicles and habitats currently being developed, there are again concerns with noise levels from ventilation fans. In the Orion vehicle, additional duct mufflers needed to be added to address the cabin fan noise. The Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module and low-Earth orbit (LEO) Freeflyer habitats are currently working to solve this problem. This will also be an issue for lunar and Mars spaceflight vehicles, space suits, and surface habitats. In an effort to address this problem, NASA is working to leverage the technology developed in its Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), specifically at the Glenn Research Center (GRC), to design highly efficient and quiet fans for reducing community noise levels from civilian aircraft. This technology was created over decades of research and development, and was proven to be effective at reducing aircraft noise levels. The current collaboration across NASA Centers, including HQ, GRC, and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in this area is the first effort at re-purposing these tools, i.e. design codes and techniques, developed for high Reynolds number fans to spaceflight vehicle and habitat, low Reynolds number, fans. This paper will discuss the need for transfer of aeronautics fan design technology to spaceflight use. This paper will also discuss the potential benefits from this, which are significant, including 1) volume and mass savings from noise controls that are no longer as large or needed at all, 2) reduced system pressure loss from mufflers and silencers (that don’t need to be as restrictive) for better ventilation, 3) reduced power draw because of the reduced system pressure loss and the highly efficient fan design, and 4) satisfying spaceflight vehicle acoustic requirements to provide a safe and habitable acoustic environment for astronaut crewmembers. All of these benefits will be crucial for the successful development and operations of future spaceflight vehicles, space suits, and habitats.

Christopher S. Allen↗
NASA NTRS1993

Pressurized modules for Space Station Freedom

Crew workstations, storage, and facilities in the SSF Habitation module along with station housekeeping and supporting subsystems (power, thermal, and life support) are considered. The U.S. Laboratory and Habitation modules are based on a common structural design. The pressurized logistics modules (PLMs) have maximum commonality with the other pressurized modules including common ring frames and waffle grid skin; multilayer insulation and debris shield; and one common endcone.

Hopson, George D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

First entry operations for spacecraft

First entry procedures implemented in the industrial setting are considered to identify those applicable to the situation on the SSF. Particular attention is given to consequences when these procedures are not followed. Operational scenarios for nominal first entry procedures intended to verify air quality before the crew enters the module are outlined. Components of the Environmental Health System will provide necessary monitoring capability to protect crew health and safety during the planned first entry procedures of the man-tended capability phase of the SSF program. It is apparent that first-entry scenarios have drawn heavily upon industry experience, tempered with the specific characteristics of the space flight environment.

Wilson, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2011

2011 Ground Testing Highlights Article

Two tests supporting development of the launch abort system for the Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle were run in the NASA Ames Unitary Plan wind tunnel last year. The first test used a fully metric model to examine the stability and controllability of the Launch Abort Vehicle during potential abort scenarios for Mach numbers ranging from 0.3 to 2.5. The aerodynamic effects of the Abort Motor and Attitude Control Motor plumes were simulated using high-pressure air flowing through independent paths. The aerodynamic effects of the proximity to the launch vehicle during the early moments of an abort were simulated with a remotely actuated Service Module that allowed the position relative to the Crew Module to be varied appropriately. The second test simulated the acoustic environment around the Launch Abort Vehicle caused by the plumes from the 400,000-pound thrust, solid-fueled Abort Motor. To obtain the proper acoustic characteristics of the hot rocket plumes for the flight vehicle, heated Helium was used. A custom Helium supply system was developed for the test consisting of 2 jumbo high-pressure Helium trailers, a twelve-tube accumulator, and a 13MW gas-fired heater borrowed from the Propulsion Simulation Laboratory at NASA Glenn Research Center. The test provided fluctuating surface pressure measurements at over 200 points on the vehicle surface that have now been used to define the ground-testing requirements for the Orion Launch Abort Vehicle.

Ross, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Orion Service Module Reaction Control System Plume Impingement Analysis Using PLIMP/RAMP2

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module Reaction Control System engine plume impingement was computed using the plume impingement program (PLIMP). PLIMP uses the plume solution from RAMP2, which is the refined version of the reacting and multiphase program (RAMP) code. The heating rate and pressure (force and moment) on surfaces or components of the Service Module were computed. The RAMP2 solution of the flow field inside the engine and the plume was compared with those computed using GASP, a computational fluid dynamics code, showing reasonable agreement. The computed heating rate and pressure using PLIMP were compared with the Reaction Control System plume model (RPM) solution and the plume impingement dynamics (PIDYN) solution. RPM uses the GASP-based plume solution, whereas PIDYN uses the SCARF plume solution. Three sets of the heating rate and pressure solutions agree well. Further thermal analysis on the avionic ring of the Service Module showed that thermal protection is necessary because of significant heating from the plume.

Wang, Xiao-Yen J.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Orion Service Module Reaction Control System Plume Impingement Analysis Using PLIMP/RAMP2

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module Reaction Control System engine plume impingement was computed using the plume impingement program (PLIMP). PLIMP uses the plume solution from RAMP2, which is the refined version of the reacting and multiphase program (RAMP) code. The heating rate and pressure (force and moment) on surfaces or components of the Service Module were computed. The RAMP2 solution of the flow field inside the engine and the plume was compared with those computed using GASP, a computational fluid dynamics code, showing reasonable agreement. The computed heating rate and pressure using PLIMP were compared with the Reaction Control System plume model (RPM) solution and the plume impingement dynamics (PIDYN) solution. RPM uses the GASP-based plume solution, whereas PIDYN uses the SCARF plume solution. Three sets of the heating rate and pressure solutions agree well. Further thermal analysis on the avionic ring of the Service Module was performed using MSC Patran/Pthermal. The obtained temperature results showed that thermal protection is necessary because of significant heating from the plume.

Wang, Xiao-Yen↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Flexible Lunar Architecture for Exploration (FLARE): Designed for the Artemis-3 Moon 2024 Mission and Beyond

The Flexible Lunar Architecture for Exploration (FLARE) is a concept to deliver four crew to the lunar surface for 7 to 14 days and then return them safely to Earth by 2024. This meets NASA’s internal 2024 lunar landing deadline directed by President Trump (Trump, 2017) and the “5-year” goal set forth by Vice President Pence (Pence, 2019). FLARE is an alternative to NASA’s Human Landing System reference architecture from the Design Analysis Cycle (DAC) #2 (NASA, 2019b). The minimum FLARE concept uses one Space Launch System launch, one Orion, one European Service Module (ESM), and one human lander to deliver four crew to the Moon for a minimum surface duration of 7 days and return them to Earth. FLARE adds a new capability, called the SpaceTug, based upon the mature and successful United Launch Alliance “Common” Centaur Upper Stage vehicle, with modifications. In FLARE, the SpaceTug provides propulsion needed to return the Orion+ESM from the Moon to Earth. The SpaceTug also provides propulsion to deliver the human lander Descent Element (DE) and Ascent Element (AE) separately to lunar orbit. The Orion+ESM then completes a rendezvous with the mated DE+AE in lunar orbit. FLARE also offers optional phases to the Moon 2024 mission. The SpaceTug can also deliver components of the planned Gateway - including the Power and Propulsion Element and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost - to lunar orbit; however, the planned FLARE destination is a Low Lunar Frozen Polar Orbit unlike the NASA DAC2 plan for a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit. FLARE also provides an option to deliver precursor equipment - including a habitation module, crew mobility devices and an In-Situ Resource Utilization demonstration - to the lunar surface for enhanced crew exploration and science with the extended 14-day surface mission.

Commercial Launch Vehicles (CLV)↗
NASA NTRS2005

First Cut

Lockheed Martin and a Northrop Grumman/Boeing team expect the Crew Exploration Vehicle proposals they submitted last week to change, given the new top-down push at NASA to close the gap between space shuttle retirement and launch of the new crew carrier. Still, delivery of the proposals gives a first glimpse of at least one of the concepts for a space shuttle replacement. Instead of the ballistic capsule approach put forward in some early CEV concept work, Lockheed Martin proposed a lifting body shape with a two-stage thermal protection system, coupled with a cylindrical mission module to give crews of four to six extra room on trips to the Moon, and a trans-Earth injection module (TEIM) for the return powered-at least in the first cut-by a couple of Pratt & Whitney RL10 rocket engines.

Morring, Frank, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Fuel Oxidizer Reaction Products (FORP) Contamination of Service Module (SM) and Release of N-nitrosodimethylamine(NDMA)in a Humid Environment from Crew EVA Suits Contaminated with FORP

The Service Module (SM) is an element of the Russian Segment of the International Space Station (ISS). One of the functions of the SM is to provide attitude control for the ISS using thrusters when the U.S. Control Moment Gyros (CMG's) must be desaturated. Prior to an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) on the Russian Segment, the Docking Compartment (DC1) is depressurized, as it is used as an airlock. When the DC1 is depressurized, the CMG's margin of momentum is insufficient and the SM attitude control thrusters need to fire to desaturate the CMG's. SM roll thruster firings induce contamination onto adjacent surfaces with Fuel Oxidizer Reaction Products (FORP). FORP is composed of both volatile and non-volatile components. One of the components of FORP is the potent carcinogen N-nitrosdimethylamine (NDMA). Since the EVA crewmembers often enter the area surrounding the thrusters for tasks on the aft end of the SM and when translating to other areas of the Russian Segment, the presence of FORP is a concern. This paper will discuss FORP contamination of the SM surfaces, the release of NDMA in a humid environment from crew EVA suits, if they happen to be contaminated with FORP, and the toxicological risk associated with the NDMA release.

Schmidl, William↗
NASA NTRS2001

STS-98 Post Flight Presentation

The crewmembers of STS-98, Commander Kenneth Cockrell, Pilot Mark Polansky, and Mission Specialists Bob Curbeam, Tom Jones, and Marsha Ivins, narrate this video as footage of from the ceremonial breakfast, crew suitup, and launch of Atlantis are seen. Various on-orbit activities are shown, including the opening of the payload bay doors, the rendezvous and docking of Atlantis with the International Space Station (ISS), the spacewalks, the installation of the Destiny Laboratory Module, and the crew playing in microgravity. The video ends with Atlantis undocking from the ISS and the landing of the orbiter.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

Sextant Navigation on the International Space Station: A Human Space Exploration Demo

Astronauts on board the International Space Station (ISS) tested a hand-held sextant to demonstrate potential use on future human exploration missions such as Orion and Gateway. The investigation, designed to aid in the development of emergency navigation methods for future crewed spacecraft, took place from June-December 2018. A sextant provides manual capability to perform star/planet-limb sightings and estimate vehicle state during loss of communication or other contingencies. Its simplicity and independence from primary systems make it useful as an emergency survival backup or confirming measurement source. The concept of using a sextant has heritage in Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab. This paper discusses the instrument selection, flight certification, crew training, product development, experiment execution, and data analysis. Preflight training consisted of a hands-on session with the instrument and practice in a Cupola mock-up with star field projector dome. The experiment itself consisted of several sessions with sextant sightings in the ISS Cupola module by two crew members. Sightings were taken on star pairs, star/moon limb, and moon diameter. The sessions were designed to demonstrate star identification and acquisition, sighting stability, accuracy, and lunar sights. Results are presented which demonstrate sightings within the accuracy goal of 60 arcseconds, even in the presence of window refraction effects and minimal crew training. The crew members provided valuable feedback on sighting products and microgravity stability techniques.

Exploration↗
NASA NTRS2008

NASA Propulsion Investments for Exploration and Science

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) invests in chemical and electric propulsion systems to achieve future mission objectives for both human exploration and robotic science. Propulsion system requirements for human missions are derived from the exploration architecture being implemented in the Constellation Program. The Constellation Program first develops a system consisting of the Ares I launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft to access the Space Station, then builds on this initial system with the heavy-lift Ares V launch vehicle, Earth departure stage, and lunar module to enable missions to the lunar surface. A variety of chemical engines for all mission phases including primary propulsion, reaction control, abort, lunar ascent, and lunar descent are under development or are in early risk reduction to meet the specific requirements of the Ares I and V launch vehicles, Orion crew and service modules, and Altair lunar module. Exploration propulsion systems draw from Apollo, space shuttle, and commercial heritage and are applied across the Constellation architecture vehicles. Selection of these launch systems and engines is driven by numerous factors including development cost, existing infrastructure, operations cost, and reliability. Incorporation of green systems for sustained operations and extensibility into future systems is an additional consideration for system design. Science missions will directly benefit from the development of Constellation launch systems, and are making advancements in electric and chemical propulsion systems for challenging deep space, rendezvous, and sample return missions. Both Hall effect and ion electric propulsion systems are in development or qualification to address the range of NASA s Heliophysics, Planetary Science, and Astrophysics mission requirements. These address the spectrum of potential requirements from cost-capped missions to enabling challenging high delta-v, long-life missions. Additionally, a high specific impulse chemical engine is in development that will add additional capability to performance-demanding space science missions. In summary, the paper provides a survey of current NASA development and risk reduction propulsion investments for exploration and science.

Smith, Bryan K.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Gateway Integrated Environmental Control and Life Support System Overview and Status

The Gateway will be a lunar orbiting platform that is a critical element in establishing a sustainable, long-term human presence on the lunar surface and beyond to deep space exploration. As part of this mission, the Gateway Environmental Control and Life Support Subsystem (ECLSS), employs its capabilities to: - Support two to four-person crew expeditions for at least 30 days, approximately once every one to three years with extended periods of dormancy, - Provide life support functionality during nominal and contingency scenarios, - Support crew expeditions to the Lunar surface by providing a Habitable volume, from which staging, or preparation can take place for missions to the Lunar surface or to deep space destinations, and - Facilitate a platform to demonstrate the necessary capabilities to expand a sustainable human presence into Deep Space, including the surface of the Moon and Mars. The Gateway consists of an assembly of modules provided by commercial and international partnerships with varied capability that, together, achieve these objectives. The Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) and International Habitat (I-Hab) modules provide the air revitalization and conditioning capabilities for the Gateway with some ECLSS functionality provided in the other modules to support crew operations. This paper explains the architecture of the Gateway ECLSS and provides the status of its development.

Gateway↗
NASA NTRS2009

Apollo 13 Guidance, Navigation, and Control Challenges

Combustion and rupture of a liquid oxygen tank during the Apollo 13 mission provides lessons and insights for future spacecraft designers and operations personnel who may never, during their careers, have participated in saving a vehicle and crew during a spacecraft emergency. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) challenges were the reestablishment of attitude control after the oxygen tank incident, re-establishment of a free return trajectory, resolution of a ground tracking conflict between the LM and the Saturn V S-IVB stage, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) alignments, maneuvering to burn attitudes, attitude control during burns, and performing manual GNC tasks with most vehicle systems powered down. Debris illuminated by the Sun and gaseous venting from the Service Module (SM) complicated crew attempts to identify stars and prevented execution of nominal IMU alignment procedures. Sightings on the Sun, Moon, and Earth were used instead. Near continuous communications with Mission Control enabled the crew to quickly perform time critical procedures. Overcoming these challenges required the modification of existing contingency procedures.

Goodman, John L.↗
NASA NTRS1970

Apollo 13 LiOH canister breakthrough test

The Apollo 13 lithium hydroxide canister test was conducted to evaluate emergency measures designed to enable the Apollo 13 crew to use command module lithium hydroxide canisters in the lunar module. The test verified the effectiveness of the emergency system and established that the canisters in the command module would provide ample carbon dioxide removal for the return of the Apollo 13 crew. The time interval between canister changes on the flight was also determined in the test. This reduced power demand on the lunar module by eliminating the need for telemetry in determining canister replacement times. Details of the canister modifications were relayed to the flight crew and a replica of the test system was assembled in the flight vehicle. Graphs of the parameters which were measured during the simulation are presented.

Leblanc, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Modular space station

The modular space station comprising small, shuttle-launched modules, and characterized by low initial cost and incremental manning, is described. The initial space station is designed to be delivered into orbit by three space shuttles and assembled in space. The three sections are the power/subsystems module, the crew/operations module, and the general purpose laboratory module. It provides for a crew of six. Subsequently duplicate/crew/operations and power/subsystems modules will be mated to the original modules, and provide for an additional six crewmen. A total of 17 research and applications modules is planned, three of which will be free-flying modules. Details are given on the program plan, modular characteristics, logistics, experiment support capability and requirements, operations analysis, design support analyses, and shuttle interfaces.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2009

Pressure Effects on the Self-Extinguishment Limits of Aerospace Materials

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Module (CM) is being designed to operate in an atmosphere of up to 30% oxygen at a pressure of 10.2 psia for lunar missions. Spacecraft materials selection is based on an upward flammability test conducted in a closed chamber under the worst expected conditions of pressure and oxygen concentration. Material flammability depends on both oxygen concentration and pressure but, since oxygen concentration is the primary driver, all materials are certified in the 30% oxygen, 10.2 psia environment. Extensive data exist from the Shuttle Program at this condition which used relatively the same test methodology as currently used in the Constellation Program. When the CM returns to Earth, a snorkel device will be activated after splashdown to provide outside air to the crew; however, for operational reasons, it is desirable to maximize the time the crew is able to breathe cabin air before the snorkel device is activated. To maximize this time, it has been proposed to raise the partial pressure of oxygen in the CM immediately before reentry while maintaining the total cabin pressure at 14.7 psia. In addition, it has been proposed to leak-test the Orion CM with ambient air at a maximum pressure of 17.3 psia. No data exist to assess how high the cabin oxygen concentration can be at 14.7 psia or 17.3 psia. One is to re-test a large number of materials at these pressures at a significant cost. However, since the maximum oxygen concentration (MOC) at which a material will self-extinguish has been determined for a variety of spacecraft materials as a function of pressure, a second alternative is to use existing data to estimate the MOC at 14.7 psia and 17.3 psia. This data will be examined in this paper and an analysis presented to determine the oxygen concentrations at the increased pressures that will result in self-extinguishment of a material. This analysis showed that the oxygen concentration for the Orion CM at 14.7 psia cannot be set higher than 25.6% without potentially invalidating the materials flammability certification in 30% oxygen at 10.2 psia for some materials. Materials certified under these conditions would still be self-extinguishing in ambient air at 17.3 psia. alternative

Hirsch, David B.↗