Results for “SPACE CAPSULE” — Page 20

NASA NTRS2018

Human Mars Entry, Descent and Landing Architecture Study (EDLAS): Rigid Decelerators

Develop two evolutionary rigid vehicle concepts to deliver human-scale payloads (20 metric tons) to the surface of Mars: Capsule; Lifting body, mid-range lift-to-drag ratio (Mid L/D). Determine vehicle configurations for various mission flight phases. Determine vehicle performance: Integrated system mass; Ability to meet landing constraints; Payload packaging and surface access. Provide technology investment recommendations to NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate.

Polsgrove, Tara↗

NASA NTRS2024

2023 Cleanroom Monitoring for OSIRIS-REx

OSIRIS-REx is an asteroid sample return mission that delivered asteroid regolith from Bennu to Earth on 9/24/2023 [1]. Cleanroom monitoring of OSIRIS-REx Curation facilities has been ongoing since 2021 when construction of the OSIRIS-REx lab at Johnson Space Center (JSC) was completed [2]. The monitoring continues inside of the OSIRIS-REx lab in Houston. Monitoring was also conducted on a temporary cleanroom constructed inside a hangar at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) to initially receive the Sample Return Capsule (SRC) upon its landing there. The following reports on cleanroom monitoring that has taken place in the months leading up to as well as after OSIRIS-REx return. Monitoring techniques used include particle counts, deployment of Si wafer witness plates (Balazs, Inc.) and Al foil witness plates, gas sampling (Balazs, Inc.) and microbiological monitoring. We collected particle counts at both the lab at JSC as well as the temporary cleanroom at UTTR. Particle counts were taken monthly from six locations in the lab at JSC. Particle counts were taken from seven locations at UTTR in July, August, and September. The UTTR cleanroom particle counts were taken daily in the five days leading to OSIRIS-REx return as well as consistently the day of return (every 2 minutes and 15 seconds 7:21 am- 6:27 pm) from one location inside the cleanroom. The particle counts at UTTR consistently stayed well within the ranges of its required ISO 7 equivalent classification (352,000 maximum particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 μm). Most analysis showed that the particle counts were far below ISO 7 requirements (highest measured count was 61,484 particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um). but the elevated instances correlated to exterior hangar doors being open. Particle counts were reduced when keeping exterior hangar doors closed. The particle counts at JSC have stayed consistently within their ISO 5 equivalent classification (3,520 maximum particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um). In most instances, the counts are much better except in one instance where the count measured 13,381 particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um. The high spike in particle counts in the JSC lab correlated with the air handlers being shut down temporarily the previous day. The particle counts taken in the same location quickly reduced and measured 0 when taken a month later with the air handlers on. We deployed 8-inch semiconductor polished Si wafer witness plates for 24-hour periods inside of the OSIRIS-REx Curation lab at JSC (in July, August, September, and November 2023) and the cleanroom at UTTR (July and September 2023) to test for possible organic and inorganic contaminants. We also deployed these wafers inside of the OSIRIS-REx Touch-and-Go sample Acquisition Mechanism (TAGSAM) glovebox (where Bennu sample processing occurs) and desiccator (Bennu sample storage) at JSC in August 2023. These samples were all sent to Balazs for analysis via Thermal Desorption Gas Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy (TD-GC-MS) to quantify organic compounds and vapor phase decomposition inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (VPD-ICP-MS) to quantify inorganic contaminants. We collected air samples using an adsorbent tube connected to a pump for six hours (100 mL/minute) inside of both the JSC lab and the UTTR cleanroom. These samples were taken at JSC in July, August, September, November, and December and at UTTR in July and September. Additionally, a sample was taken just outside of the TAGSAM glovebox airlock door in July. These samples were sent to Balazs for analysis of volatile organics in air. Overall, the OSIRIS-REx lab at JSC and cleanroom at UTTR yielded very low organic and inorganic contaminants (similar results to Genesis lab at JSC which is ISO 4 equivalent) except for boron, which is attributed to the borosilicate glass in the fan filter units. We collected monthly surface and air samples inside the JSC lab to monitor potential microbial contamination. We report the recovery rate for each sampling event, which is defined as the number of samples exhibiting bacterial or fungal growth divided by the total number of samples collected. Since the lab was commissioned in 2021 the median recovery rate is 29%. This recovery rate is consistent with other ISO 5 equivalent labs used to curate astromaterials collections. Increases in recovery rate correspond to construction and/or extra activity in the lab. However, increases in recovery rate do not reliably correlate to increases in particle counts, which highlights the need for a dedicated microbial monitoring program for biologically sensitive collections. We sampled the temporary clean room at UTTR in July, August, and September of 2023 to monitor potential microbial contamination. The recovery rate decreased from 80% in August to 29% in September. However, in all instances, the diversity of bacteria and fungi was higher in the UTTR cleanroom than in the JSC lab. We routinely collected more than twenty different organisms from the UTTR cleanroom. In the JSC lab the median diversity is 2 organisms. Based on these results we hypothesize that microbes from UTTR could be transported back to JSC with the Bennu samples. To mitigate this risk, in September of 2023, we implemented additional cleaning procedures in the JSC lab to reduce the bioburden on surfaces that could come into direct contact with hardware used to process Bennu samples. Since adopting these additional cleaning measures, the median recovery rate has decreased to 14%. We did not observe an increase in fungal or bacterial diversity in the lab in the October sampling. We will continue to monitor this trend closely for the next several months. Supported by NASA under Award NNH09ZDA007O and Contract NNM10AA11C.

Rachel Comstock Funk↗

NASA NTRS2016

Thermal Testing of Ablators in the NASA Johnson Space Center Radiant Heat Test Facility

A spacecraft's thermal protection system (TPS) is required to survive the harsh environment experienced during reentry. Accurate thermal modeling of the TPS is required to since uncertainties in the thermal response result in higher design margins and an increase in mass. The Radiant Heat Test Facility (RHTF) located at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) replicates the reentry temperatures and pressures on system level full scale TPS test models for the validation of thermal math models. Reusable TPS, i.e. tile or reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC), have been the primary materials tested in the past. However, current capsule designs for MPCV and commercial programs have required the use of an ablator TPS. The RHTF has successfully completed a pathfinder program on avcoat ablator material to demonstrate the feasibility of ablator testing. The test results and corresponding ablation analysis results are presented in this paper.

Del Papa, Steven↗

NASA NTRS2019

The Multi-Mission Earth Entry Vehicle for Sample Return Missions – Past, Present, and Future

The Multi-Mission Earth Entry Vehicle (MMEEV) is an enabling technology developed at NASA’s Langley Research Center (LaRC) over the last two decades for returning samples to Earth across a wide array of space science missions. Currently, the MMEEV is being considered for NASA’s Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission. The original vehicle concept, the Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV), was innovated at LaRC in 1998 as a robust solution to return Mars soil samples to Earth under stringent backward contamination requirements. These backward contamination requirements drove the EEV to have higher reliability than any capsule previously designed for a return-to-Earth sample return mission. The EEV achieved this high reliability by employing a passive (no active systems) vehicle architecture optimized for fault tolerance in a compact, low-mass configuration that is extensible to virtually any sample return mission. The original EEV concept utilized a carbon-carbon primary structure with high-density carbon phenolic thermal protection system. The capsule had a 60-degree sphere-cone forebody and a backshell geometry uniquely tailored to produce aerodynamics that would passively re-orient the vehicle if it entered the atmosphere with an off-nominal attitude. Contrary to every other sample return capsule conceived at the time, the EEV was designed to land without a parachute. The vehicle incorporated an integral energy-absorbing crushable structure that protected the Mars sample for landings on surfaces ranging from soft soil to solid concrete. This paper describes 20 years of technological advancements LaRC has incorporated into the EEV architecture to evolve it from the original, MSR-enabling vehicle, to a true multi-mission capability relevant to any sample return mission. The vehicle’s unique Integrated Composite Stiffener Structure (ICoSS) has been optimized for specific strength - supporting high-G atmospheric entries with steep entry angles that produce precise landing footprints on the ground. The vehicle geometry has been refined through wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics simulations to improve the vehicle’s aerodynamic stability and robustness to off-nominal conditions from hypersonic to subsonic flight. The resulting configuration of the current MMEEV architecture is described, with details provided on its sample carrying capacity and atmospheric entry trajectory capabilities. The upgraded vehicle performance is mapped into current space science objectives, showing how the MMEEV supports future sample return missions and continues to be an enabling technology for NASA’s vision to return samples from Mars.

J M Corliss↗

NASA NTRS2007

Conceptual Inquiry of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station GNC Flight Controllers

The concept of Mission Control was envisioned by Christopher Columbus Kraft in the 1960's. Instructed to figure out how to operate human space flight safely, Kraft envisioned a room of sub-system experts troubleshooting problems and supporting nominal flight activities under the guidance of one Flight Director who is responsible for the success of the mission. To facilitate clear communication, MCC communicates with the crew through a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) who is an astronaut themselves. Gemini 4 was the first mission to be supported by such a MCC and successfully completed the first American EVA. The MCC seen on television is called the Flight Control Room (FCR, pronounced ficker) or otherwise known as the front room. While this room is the most visible aspect, it is a very small component of the entire control center. The Shuttle FCR is known as the White FCR (WFCR) and Station's as FCR-1. (FCR-1 was actually the first FCR built at JSC which was used through the Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle programs until the WFCR was completed in 1992. Afterwards FCR-1 was refurbished first for the Life Sciences Center and then for the ISS in 2006.) Along with supporting the Flight Director, each FCR operator is also the supervisor for usually two or three support personnel in a back room called the Multi-Purpose Support Room (MPSR, pronounced mipser). MPSR operators are more deeply focused on their specific subsystems and have the responsible to analyze patterns, and diagnose and assess consequences of faults. The White MPSR (WMPSR) operators are always present for Shuttle operations; however, ISS FCR controllers only have support from their Blue MPSR (BMPSR) while the Shuttle is docked and during critical operations. Since ISS operates 24-7, the FCR team reduces to a much smaller Gemini team of 4-5 operators for night and weekend shifts when the crew is off-duty. The FCR is also supported by the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) which is a collection of contractor engineers who provide analysis and long-term troubleshooting support. Each MER operator is an expert in a very small portion of a sub-system and each FCR console usually interfaces with several MER positions.

Kranzusch, Kara↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design and Technology Maturation of the Stratospheric Projectile Experiment of Entry Dynamics

The supersonic and transonic dynamic stability of blunt-body reentry vehicles currently poses large risks in all of NASA’s ongoing entry missions (MSR SRL, MSR EES, and Dragonfly). These projects have allocated millions of dollars to testing and modeling efforts to buy down risk by using the current state-of-the-art (SoA) facilities at NASA’s disposal. While these facilities have heritage in supplying dynamics data to reentry missions, their availability is severely limited – particularly with the high number of concur-rent projects requesting simultaneous testing– and are costly when considering the science density per dollar. None of the current SoA facility methodologies allow the test model to have the dynamics fully develop through a flight relevant free-stream profile and as such require extrapolations with resultant high uncertainties in order to relate the test dynamics to flight expectations. SPEED is a NASA Ames Center Innovation Fund (CIF) project that is developing a highly tailorable and cost-effective test methodology to better assess the dynamic stability of blunt-body reentry vehicles via a stratospheric balloon flight. This is accomplished by dropping a suite of instrumented capsules from a stratospheric balloon to gain a statistically relevant dataset of scaled reentry vehicles in mission relevant free-flight conditions. This presentation will walk through how the test methodology is being implemented specifically for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Earth Entry System (EES) geometry in an awarded Flight Opportunities Program (FOP) test flight in early CY24. SPEED Application to MSR: SPEED consists of three main mechanical systems: the Drop Platform, the Projectile, and the test Capsule. SPEED is being developed as a set of guidelines and recommendations for how to test with the proposed Concept of Operations (Conops) since the specific design parameters will vary depending on the specific project’s reference trajectory and entry vehicle design. As such, this presentation will walk through the development time-line as shown in Fig. 2. This is meant to serve as a blueprint for further missions as desired. Mechanical and Avionics Design. The SPEED test platform designed for the MSR-EES capsule geometry with nominal entry parameters has the ability to carry 10 Capsules to altitude instrumented with: 1. 3-Axis Accelerometer 2. IMU 3. Gyroscope 4. Magnetometer 5. Pressure Transducer cruciform 6. Uplook and Horizon Cameras To package the avionics/instrumentation suite, the capsule is approximately 1’ in diameter with the Outer Mold Line (OML) centroid-scaled from the full EES design. The internal volume is gutted and custom-shaped to fit the desired instrumentation suite, as well as to allow for the positioning of ballast mass such that the Center of Gravity is analogous to the flight vehicle. All structural components in the Capsule and Projectile are 3D printed, which significantly reduces the cost of each flight unit to around $1500 including all instrumentation, avionics, and structural components. Flight Conops. The test Capsule is accelerated to the desired altitude and Mach number while stowed in the Projectile, a missile-like vehicle consisting of steel ballast in the nose, a low-drag OML, and an Ejection Mechanism to reliably release the Capsule into the free-flow supersonic conditions. For the MSR-EES design, the capsule employs ~3kg of ballast mass at the nose to accelerate the 1.25kg test Capsule to ~Mach 1.7 at 23km altitude. This requires an initial release altitude of 40km, the quoted limit of a 80kg payload by the FOP-contracted balloon provider. Once the Ejection Mechanism avionics detect the proper conditions, the spring-loaded Ejection Mechanism will release and – guided by the sabot – expose the test Capsule to the desired test conditions for ~5 seconds of free-flight in the supersonic/transonic regimes. Dynamics in the subsonic regime will also be captured with the instrumentation suite with post-flight recovery operations aimed at recovering the high-G-load capable SD cards after the planned hard impact landings. Testing and Development: In the few months the SPEED project has worked the development of MSR-EES flight test, the team has performed lab and drone based testing which this presentation will overview. After the first design phase, the team fabricated Engineering Demonstration Units (EDUs) of all subsystems to perform validation testing shown in Fig. 5. After validation was completed on the subsystem level, a drone-drop test was performed at the recreational flight ceiling of 400ft altitude to assess the SPEED systems in a flight environment. Parameters such as in-flight stability, hard impact landing performance, and avionics performance were quantified and qualified. The FY23 CIF will culminate in a helicopter drop test aboard an Air National Guard Blackhawk. This will prepare the team for the CY24 FOP stratospheric balloon flight that should provide the final verification to begin offering the test platform for mission support. Focus of Presentation: This presentation will outline the technology maturation path of the SPEED implementation to the MSR-EES capsule baseline as well as the details regarding the mechanical system, avionics and instrumentation, and flight operations. Note that a complementary presentation is being submitted for a methodology overview of the SPEED test platform, introducing the testing technique and benefits as well as the full application space of the technology.

pitch damping coefficient↗

NASA NTRS1994

Analytical investigation of the dynamics of tethered constellations in Earth orbit, phase 2

This final report covers nine years of research on future tether applications and on the actual flights of the Small Expendable Deployment System (SEDS). Topics covered include: (1) a description of numerical codes used to simulate the orbital and attitude dynamics of tethered systems during station keeping and deployment maneuvers; (2) a comparison of various tethered system simulators; (3) dynamics analysis, conceptual design, potential applications and propagation of disturbances and isolation from noise of a variable gravity/microgravity laboratory tethered to the Space Station; (4) stability of a tethered space centrifuge; (5) various proposed two-dimensional tethered structures for low Earth orbit for use as planar array antennas; (6) tethered high gain antennas; (7) numerical calculation of the electromagnetic wave field on the Earth's surface on an electrodynamically tethered satellite; (8) reentry of tethered capsules; (9) deployment dynamics of SEDS-1; (10) analysis of SEDS-1 flight data; and (11) dynamics and control of SEDS-2.

Lorenzini, Enrico C.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Mouse Behavior on ISS: The Emergence of Distinctive, Organized Group Circling Behavior Unique to Spaceflight

As interest in long duration effects of space habitation increases, understanding the behavior of model organisms living within the habitats engineered to fly them is vital for designing, validating, and interpreting future spaceflight studies. Only a handful of papers have previously reported behavior of mice and rats in the weightless environment of space (Andreev-Andrievskiy, et al., 2013; Cancedda et al., 2012; Ronca et al., 2008). The Rodent Research Hardware and Operations Validation Mission (Rodent Research-1; RR1) utilized the Rodent Habitat (RH) developed at NASA Ames Research Center to fly mice on the ISS. Ten adult (16-week-old) female C57BL6J mice were launched on September 21st, 2014 in an unmanned Dragon Capsule, and spent 37 days in flight. Here we report group behavioral phenotypes of the RR1 Flight (FLT) and environment-matched Ground Control (GC) mice in the RH during this long duration flight. Video was recorded for 34 days on the ISS, permitting daily assessments of overall health and well being of the mice, and providing a valuable repository for detailed behavioral analysis. As compared to GC mice, RR1 FLT mice exhibited the same range of behaviors, including eating, drinking, exploration, self- and allogrooming,and social interactions at similar or greater levels of occurrence. Overallactivity was greater in FLT as compared to GC mice, with spontaneous ambulatory behavior, including organized circling or race-tracking behavior that emerged within thefirst few days of flight following a common developmental sequence, comprising theprimary dark cycle activity of FLT mice. Circling participation by individual micepersisted throughout the mission. Analysis of group behavior over mission days revealed recruitment of mice into the group phenotype, coupled with decreasing numbers of collisions between circling mice. This analysis provides insights into the behavior of mice in microgravity, and clear evidence for the emergence of a distinctive,organized group behavior unique to the weightless space environment.

mice↗

NASA NTRS2017

Mouse Behavior on ISS: The Emergence of a Distinctive, Organized Group Circling Behavior Unique to Spaceflight

As interest in long duration effects of space habitation increases, understanding the behavior of model organisms living within the habitats engineered to fly them is vital for designing, validating, and interpreting future spaceflight studies. Only a handful of papers have previously reported behavior of mice and rats in the weightless environment of space (Andreev-Andrievskiy, et al., 2013; Cancedda et al., 2012; Ronca et al., 2008). The Rodent Research Hardware and Operations Validation Mission (Rodent Research-1; RR1) utilized the Rodent Habitat (RH) developed at NASA Ames Research Center to fly mice on the ISS. Ten adult (16-week-old) female C57BL6J mice were launched on September 21st, 2014 in an unmanned Dragon Capsule, and spent 37 days in flight. Here we report group behavioral phenotypes of the RR1 Flight (FLT) and environment-matched Ground Control (GC) mice in the RH during this long duration flight. Video was recorded for 34 days on the ISS, permitting daily assessments of overall health and well being of the mice, and providing a valuable repository for detailed behavioral analysis. As compared to GC mice, RR1 FLT mice exhibited the same range of behaviors, including eating, drinking, exploration, self- and allogrooming, and social interactions at similar or greater levels of occurrence. Overall activity was greater in FLT as compared to GC mice, with spontaneous ambulatory behavior, including organized circling or race-tracking behavior that emerged within the first few days of flight following a common developmental sequence, comprising the primary dark cycle activity of FLT mice. Circling participation by individual mice persisted throughout the mission. Analysis of group behavior over mission days revealed recruitment of mice into the group phenotype, coupled with decreasing numbers of collisions between circling mice. This analysis provides insights into the behavior of mice in microgravity, and clear evidence for the emergence of a distinctive, organized group behavior unique to the weightless space environment. Supported by the NASA Rodent Research Project, Space Biology Program, and Space Life Sciences Training Program.

spaceflight↗

NASA NTRS1988

Design of the unmanned Multiple Exploratory Probe System (MEPS) for Mars observations

The unmanned Multiple Exploratory Probe System (MEPS) is designed for Mars observations in preparation for manned missions to the planet early in the 21st century. MEPS will test vehicle systems, provide important data about the Martian surface and atmosphere, and assist the planning of manned missions. This mission will be a precursor to the manned missions. MEPS will consist of six primary systems. A Command Information Center (CIC) will be employed as an onboard mission control, communications link, and observation post. The Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) will be used to provide the thrust for Earth-Mars transit following vehicle construction near the Space Station. A polar lander/Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) will be deployed during transit to achieve a polar orbit about Mars. A secondary propulsion will be used to place MEPS into orbit about Mars; this system and the aerobrake will circularize the orbit. Following orbit circulation, a satellite will be deployed to observe the Martian surface and atmosphere and to study the space environment. Polar and equatorial lander systems will land on Mars with rovers to collect surface and atmospheric samples while on-board laboratories will provide initial sample study. Two solid rocket booster/payload vehicles will launch samples into a low Mars orbit. The OTV will rendezvous with each payload capsule and then transfer the samples to Earth for hands-on observation.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Developments of Thermal Protection Materials to Enable Lower Cost Space Missions

Introduction: Starting with the Commercial Crew Program, a new paradigm has emerged at NASA. Rather than designing rockets and spacecrafts for every mission optimized to achieve science, NASA has begun to use a service-based model and utilizing public-private partnership in developing the vehicles that can bring broader benefits as well as lower the cost for NASA missions. Commercial companies own and operate those vehicles. This allows NASA to not design missions from the bottom up, and has cost, risk, and schedule savings implications. On the other side, the constraints require meeting the requirements in terms of mass, volume, power, etc. By leveraging NASA developed technologies, commercial companies can quickly demonstrate the commercial mission concept, and, through technology transfer, adopt needed technology to address supply chain problems. A downside is that the technology has to be sufficiently mature to be transferred by NASA, which means that it requires significant investment, expertise, and time to develop. Space entities are focused on rapid development with an emphasis on manufacturing and integration innovation with reduced cost and schedule and quick entrance into the market. Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) are mission critical, but their development takes years, and involve access to arc jets or unique test facilities. Therefore, their development is both risky and investment heavy. NASA ARC developed several new TPS materials over the last decade (C-PICA, HEEET, 3MDCP, 3DMAT, ADEPT woven TPS) and brought them to high TPS maturity, making them enablers for commercials space missions from LEO, Lunar Sample Return, Mars, and Venus missions. LEO missions are relevant to future Mars missions due to the comparable entry conditions. External Partners' Missions: C-PICA is a recent improvement on NASA’s heritage PICA lightweight TPS ablator. C-PICA is now considered an enabling technology for New Frontiers and other NASA missions. C-PICA was infused into several missions from external partners. Varda Space Industries’ Winnebago-1 spacecraft successfully returned to Earth from LEO on Feb. 21st, 2024, using a C-PICA heatshield. Inversion Space’s Ray vehicle will test both ARC’s C-PICA and SIRCA TPS materials on a LEO return mission later in 2024. The Kentucky Re-Entry Probe Experiment (KREPE) is another example of a low-cost flight experiment to demonstrate the use of small entry capsules to gather data with three instrumented Kentucky Re-entry and Universal Payload System (KRUPS) capsules. NASA Arc provided C-PICA and Soft-PICA for two of the next KRUPS capsules scheduled to re-enter Earth from the ISS later in 2024. Finally, Rocket Lab’s low-cost mission to Venus, scheduled to launch in December 2024, will search for habitable conditions in Venus’ cloud layer, making use of NASA ARC provided HEEET insulation layer heat shield, and SIRCA backshell TPS materials. Future NASA Missions: NASA’s ability to help commercial missions can lead to future low-cost missions for several reasons: Competition encourages lower cost; technology maturation is now done at an integrated system level; and a common design architecture between commercial and scientific applications requires no specialized engineering design. From an engineering perspective, both of these commercial LEO capsules aforementioned are capable of a Mars entry; the commercial payload mut be replaced with as science payload. Finally, several NASA mission concepts, that could be candidates for future SIMPLEx program calls, such as VATMOS-SR and Nephele, both proposing to target the Venusian atmosphere, would make use of the HEEET insulation layer TPS for part of their heat shield.

TPS materials↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Developments of Thermal Protection Materials to Enable Lower Cost Space Missions

Introduction: Starting with the Commercial Crew Program, a new paradigm has emerged at NASA. Rather than designing rockets and spacecrafts for every mission optimized to achieve science, NASA has begun to use a service-based model and utilizing public-private partnership in developing the vehicles that can bring broader benefits as well as lower the cost for NASA missions. Commercial companies own and operate those vehicles. This allows NASA to not design missions from the bottom up, and has cost, risk, and schedule savings implications. On the other side, the constraints require meeting the requirements in terms of mass, volume, power, etc. By leveraging NASA developed technologies, commercial companies can quickly demonstrate the commercial mission concept, and, through technology transfer, adopt needed technology to address supply chain problems. A downside is that the technology has to be sufficiently mature to be transferred by NASA, which means that it requires significant investment, expertise, and time to develop. Space entities are focused on rapid development with an emphasis on manufacturing and integration innovation with reduced cost and schedule and quick entrance into the market. Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) are mission critical, but their development takes years, and involve access to arc jets or unique test facilities. Therefore, their development is both risky and investment heavy. NASA ARC developed several new TPS materials over the last decade (C-PICA, HEEET, 3MDCP, 3DMAT, ADEPT woven TPS) and brought them to high TPS maturity, making them enablers for commercials space missions from LEO, Lunar Sample Return, Mars, and Venus missions. LEO missions are relevant to future Mars missions due to the comparable entry conditions. External Partners' Missions: C-PICA is a recent improvement on NASA’s heritage PICA lightweight TPS ablator. C-PICA is now considered an enabling technology for New Frontiers and other NASA missions. C-PICA was infused into several missions from external partners. Varda Space Industries’ Winnebago-1 spacecraft successfully returned to Earth from LEO on Feb. 21st, 2024, using a C-PICA heatshield. Inversion Space’s Ray vehicle will test both ARC’s C-PICA and SIRCA TPS materials on a LEO return mission later in 2024. The Kentucky Re-Entry Probe Experiment (KREPE) is another example of a low-cost flight experiment to demonstrate the use of small entry capsules to gather data with three instrumented Kentucky Re-entry and Universal Payload System (KRUPS) capsules. NASA Arc provided C-PICA and Soft-PICA for two of the next KRUPS capsules scheduled to re-enter Earth from the ISS later in 2024. Finally, Rocket Lab’s low-cost mission to Venus, scheduled to launch in December 2024, will search for habitable conditions in Venus’ cloud layer, making use of NASA ARC provided HEEET insulation layer heat shield, and SIRCA backshell TPS materials. Future NASA Missions: NASA’s ability to help commercial missions can lead to future low-cost missions for several reasons: Competition encourages lower cost; technology maturation is now done at an integrated system level; and a common design architecture between commercial and scientific applications requires no specialized engineering design. From an engineering perspective, both of these commercial LEO capsules aforementioned are capable of a Mars entry; the commercial payload mut be replaced with as science payload. Finally, several NASA mission concepts, that could be candidates for future SIMPLEx program calls, such as VATMOS-SR and Nephele, both proposing to target the Venusian atmosphere, would make use of the HEEET insulation layer TPS for part of their heat shield.

TPS materials↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Challenger disaster was caused by an Apollo decision

NASA’s view of risk changed between early Apollo and the Space Shuttle. Risk was a known serious problem at the beginning of Apollo and the risk estimates were disturbingly high. To avoid public concern, risk analysis was discontinued. Risk analysis was avoided in Shuttle, leading to an unnecessarily risky design. The immediate cause of the Challenger tragedy was the mistaken decision to launch in cold weather. The fundamental cause was the high risk of the Shuttle design. Before Challenger, management thought and testified that the probability of an accident was 1 in 100,000. After Challenger, Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) found a roughly 1 in 100 chance of a Shuttle failure. The recent Orion design uses the safer Apollo approach, with a hardened capsule, launch abort escape, and the crew placed above the rocket tanks and engines. During Apollo it was estimated that, “assuming all elements from propulsion to rendezvous and life support were done as well or better than ever before, that 30 astronauts would be lost before 3 were returned safely to the Earth.” The chance of astronaut survival was only 10%. After the Apollo 1 tragedy, the awareness of risk led to an intense focus on achieving safety. “The only possible explanation for the astonishing success – no losses in space and on time – was that every participant at every level in every area far exceeded the norm of human capabilities.” During Apollo, a NASA PRA found that the chance of success was “less than 5 percent.” The NASA Administrator felt that “the numbers could do irreparable harm,” and discontinued numerical risk assessment.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Challenger tragedy was caused by an Apollo mistake, terminating risk analysis

NASA’s view of risk changed between early Apollo and the Space Shuttle. Risk was a known serious problem at the beginning of Apollo and the risk estimates were disturbingly high. To avoid public concern, risk analysis was discontinued. Risk analysis was avoided in Shuttle, leading to an unnecessarily risky design. The immediate cause of the Challenger tragedy was the mistaken decision to launch in cold weather. The fundamental cause was the high risk of the Shuttle design. Before Challenger, management thought and testified that the probability of an accident was 1 in 100,000. After Challenger, Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) found a roughly 1 in 100 chance of a Shuttle failure. The recent Orion design uses the safer Apollo approach, with a hardened capsule, launch abort escape, and the crew placed above the rocket tanks and engines. During Apollo it was estimated that, “assuming all elements from propulsion to rendezvous and life support were done as well or better than ever before, that 30 astronauts would be lost before 3 were returned safely to the Earth.” The chance of astronaut survival was only 10%. After the Apollo 1 tragedy, the awareness of risk led to an intense focus on achieving safety. “The only possible explanation for the astonishing success – no losses in space and on time – was that every participant at every level in every area far exceeded the norm of human capabilities.” During Apollo, a NASA PRA found that the chance of success was “less than 5 percent.” The NASA Administrator felt that “the numbers could do irreparable harm,” and discontinued numerical risk assessment. This led to decreasing understanding of risk. The head of Apollo reliability and safety decided, “Statistics don’t count for anything,” and that risk is reduced by “attention taken in design.” The great and initially unexpected success of Apollo appeared to validate the neglect of PRA. Continuing to neglect the mathematical estimation of risk led Shuttle into a high risk design that produced tragic results. The initial design of the Shuttle emphasized increasing capability and reducing cost without analysis or even mention of risk. A retired NASA official stated, “some NASA people began to confuse desire with reality. … One result was to assess risk in terms of what was thought acceptable without regard for verifying the assessment. … Note that under such circumstances real risk management is shut out.” Not computing risk led to removing launch abort, removing crew escape, selecting less reliable Solid Rocket Boosters, placing the crew compartment next to the rocket boosters, and accepting more stressed shielding tile designs. Accepting these specific risks directly caused the shuttle disasters. The Challenger tragedy is frequently taught as a case of management failure. The focus is on the Challenger launch decision hours before, which is a dramatic example of bad management. However, the true cause of the Challenger disaster occurred decades earlier in the Apollo era. When the easily predictable failures occurred, failure investigations focused on how they might have been avoided. The Shuttle was cancelled after the space station was completed because of its high risk. The ultimate cause of the Shuttle tragedies was the choice by the Apollo-era NASA administrator to avoid a negative public reaction to realistic risk analysis.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2011

Launch Pad Escape System Design (Human Spaceflight)

A launch pad escape system for human spaceflight is one of those things that everyone hopes they will never need but is critical for every manned space program. Since men were first put into space in the early 1960s, the need for such an Emergency Escape System (EES) has become apparent. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has made use of various types of these EESs over the past 50 years. Early programs, like Mercury and Gemini, did not have an official launch pad escape system. Rather, they relied on a Launch Escape System (LES) of a separate solid rocket motor attached to the manned capsule that could pull the astronauts to safety in the event of an emergency. This could only occur after hatch closure at the launch pad or during the first stage of flight. A version of a LES, now called a Launch Abort System (LAS) is still used today for all manned capsule type launch vehicles. However, this system is very limited in that it can only be used after hatch closure and it is for flight crew only. In addition, the forces necessary for the LES/LAS to get the capsule away from a rocket during the first stage of flight are quite high and can cause injury to the crew. These shortcomings led to the development of a ground based EES for the flight crew and ground support personnel as well. This way, a much less dangerous mode of egress is available for any flight or ground personnel up to a few seconds before launch. The early EESs were fairly simple, gravity-powered systems to use when thing's go bad. And things can go bad very quickly and catastrophically when dealing with a flight vehicle fueled with millions of pounds of hazardous propellant. With this in mind, early EES designers saw such a passive/unpowered system as a must for last minute escapes. This and other design requirements had to be derived for an EES, and this section will take a look at the safety design requirements had to be derived for an EES, and this section will take a look at the safety design aspects for a launch pad escape system.

Maloney, Kelli↗

NASA NTRS2007

Scientific Exploration of Near-Earth Objects via the Crew Exploration Vehicle

The concept of a crewed mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO) has been analyzed in depth in 1989 as part of the Space Exploration Initiative. Since that time two other studies have investigated the possibility of sending similar missions to NEOs. A more recent study has been sponsored by the Advanced Programs Office within NASA's Constellation Program. This study team has representatives from across NASA and is currently examining the feasibility of sending a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to a near-Earth object (NEO). The ideal mission profile would involve a crew of 2 or 3 astronauts on a 90 to 120 day flight, which would include a 7 to 14 day stay for proximity operations at the target NEO. One of the significant advantages of this type of mission is that it strengthens and validates the foundational infrastructure for the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) and Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) in the run up to the lunar sorties at the end of the next decade (approx.2020). Sending a human expedition to a NEO, within the context of the VSE and ESAS, demonstrates the broad utility of the Constellation Program s Orion (CEV) crew capsule and Ares (CLV) launch systems. This mission would be the first human expedition to an interplanetary body outside of the cislunar system. Also, it will help NASA regain crucial operational experience conducting human exploration missions outside of low Earth orbit, which humanity has not attempted in nearly 40 years.

Abell, Paul A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Sea State and Weather Capability for NASA's Constellation Program

Marine weather and related parameters such as wind, ocean wave height and period, air temperature, sea surface temperature, visibility, and potential for icing are critical to the design, operation, and safety of crewed space vehicles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Constellation Program requires detailed assessment of marine weather related parameters that may be encountered during launch, abort, landing, and crew rescue operations for the crewed Axes/Orion space vehicles. This information is required for both space vehicle design and operational purposes. The space vehicles must be designed such that they cam withstand the environment they are likely to encounter. The crewed Axes/Orion space vehicles will launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida for both International Space Station (ISS) missions with 51.6deg inclination orbits and lunar missions with approximately 280 inclination orbits. Since both missions will fly ever the Atlantic Ocean on ascent to orbit and will fly over the Pacific Ocean on descent from orbit, an unlikely but possible emergency abort could require parachuting the Orion capsule and crew into the ocean. This situation could potentially put the crew in an isolated and hazardous environment for severn hours while they await rescue. Therefore, abort, landing, and crew rescue elements of the Constellation Program must address weather related parameters on a global scale. This paper describes buoy measurement data, sea surface temperature satellite data, and sea state computer model data that are being utilized by the Constellation Program to address these design and operational issues.

Barbre, R. E.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Sea State and Weather Assessment Capability for NASA's Constellation Program

Marine weather and related parameters such as wind, ocean wave height and period, air temperature, sea surface temperature, visibility, and potential for icing are critical to the design, operation, and safety of crewed space vehicles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Constellation Program requires detailed assessment of marine weather related parameters that may be encountered during launch, abort, landing, and crew rescue operations for the crewed Ares/Orion space vehicles. This information is required for both space vehicle design and operational purposes. The space vehicles must be designed such that they can withstand the environment they are likely to encounter. The crewed Ares/Orion space vehicles will launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida for both International Space Station (ISS) missions with 51.6 o inclination orbits and lunar missions with approximately 28 inclination orbits. Since both missions will fly over the Atlantic Ocean on ascent to orbit and will fly over the Pacific Ocean on descent from orbit, an unlikely but possible emergency abort could require parachuting the Orion capsule and crew into the ocean. This situation could potentially put the crew in an isolated and hazardous environment for several hours while they await rescue. Therefore, abort, landing, and crew rescue elements of the Constellation Program must address weather related parameters on a global scale. This paper describes buoy measurement data, sea surface temperature satellite data, and sea state computer model data that are being utilized by the Constellation Program to address these design and operational issues.

Barbre, B. J.↗