SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
The benefits of the utilization of effluents of the Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system are examined. Various ECLSS-propulsion system interaction options are evaluated and compared on the basis of weight, volume, and power requirements. Annual propulsive impulse to maintain station altitude during a complete solar cycle of eleven years and the effect on station resupply are considered.
As the nation plans manned missions that go far beyond Earth orbit to Mars, there is an urgent need for a robust, disciplined systems engineering methodology that can identify an optimized Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) architecture for long duration deep space missions. But unlike the previously used Equivalent System Mass (ESM), the method must be inclusive of all driving parameters and emphasize the economic analysis of life support system design. The key parameter for this analysis is Life Cycle Cost (LCC). LCC takes into account the cost for development and qualification of the system, launch costs, operational costs, maintenance costs and all other relevant and associated costs. Additionally, an effective methodology must consider system technical performance, safety, reliability, maintainability, crew time, and other factors that could affect the overall merit of the life support system.
Many options for exploration of space have been identified and evaluated since the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) was announced in 2004. Lunar architectures have been identified and addressed in the Lunar Surface Systems team to establish options for how to get to and then inhabit and explore the moon. The Augustine Commission evaluated human space flight for the Obama administration and identified many options for how to conduct human spaceflight in the future. This paper will evaluate the options for exploration of space for the implications of architectures on the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS), ExtraVehicular Activity (EVA) and Thermal Control System (TCS) Systems. The advantages and disadvantages of each architecture and options are presented.
There are numerous studies which show that CASE Tools greatly facilitate software development. As a result of these advantages, an increasing amount of software development is done with CASE Tools. As more software engineers become proficient with these tools, their experience and feedback lead to further development with the tools themselves. What has not been widely studied, however, is the reliability and efficiency of the actual code produced by the CASE Tools. This investigation considered these matters. Three segments of code generated by MATRIXx, one of many commercially available CASE Tools, were chosen for analysis: ETOFLIGHT, a portion of the Earth to Orbit Flight software, and ECLSS and PFMC, modules for Environmental Control and Life Support System and Pump Fan Motor Control, respectively.
Many options for exploration of space have been identified and evaluated since the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) was announced in 2004. The Augustine Commission evaluated human space flight for the Obama administration then the Human Exploration Framework Teams (HEFT and HEFT2) evaluated potential exploration missions and the infrastructure and technology needs for those missions. Lunar architectures have been identified and addressed by the Lunar Surface Systems team to establish options for how to get to, and then inhabit and explore, the moon. This paper will evaluate the options for exploration of space for the implications of architectures on the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS), Thermal Control (TCS), and Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Systems.
Pathway Student Showcase - Environmental Control and Life Support System for Orion Ground and Flight Application Software Team
The G189A simulation of the Shuttle Orbiter ECLSS was upgraded. All simulation library versions and simulation models were converted from the EXEC2 to the EXEC8 computer system and a new program, G189PL, was added to the combination master program library. The program permits the post-plotting of up to 100 frames of plot data over any time interval of a G189 simulation run. The overlay structure of the G189A simulations were restructured for the purpose of conserving computer core requirements and minimizing run time requirements.
The baseline Environmental Control and Life Support Systems which are currently deployed on the International Space Station or planned to be launched in Node 3 are based on technologies selected in the early 1990's. While they are generally meeting or exceeding requirements for supporting the ISS crew, lessons learned from years of on orbit and ground testing, new advances in technology state of the art, and requirements for future manned missions prompt consideration of the next logical step to enhance these systems to increase performance, robustness, reliability, and reduce on-orbit and logistical resource requirements. This paper discusses the current state of the art in ISS ECLSS technologies, and possible areas for enhancement/improvement. Potential utilization of the ISS as a testbed for on-orbit checkout of selected technology improvements is also addressed.
It is noted that no single ECLSS is uniquely applicable to a mission of given crew size and duration; all mission parameters, together with details of other systems, must accordingly be factored into the lunar base ECLSS design process that is presently discussed. Experience to date with ECLSS design tasks indicates that mission planners and systems engineers should refrain from emphasizing the 'closed loop' aspects of such systems, since even the best regenerative processes will involve expendable materials that must be resupplied; resupply logistics will accordingly constitute a considerable effort of lunar base operation. Technology development status for processes and subsystems is identified as a major ECLSS design driver.
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.
Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.
The accurate modeling and analysis of two-phase fluid networks found in environmental control and life support systems is presently undertaken by computer-aided engineering (CAE) techniques whose generalized fluid dynamics package can solve arbitrary flow networks. The CAE system for integrated test bed modeling and analysis will also furnish interfaces and subsystem/test-article mathematical models. Three-dimensional diagrams of the test bed are generated by the system after performing the requisite simulation and analysis.
Life Support Systems (LSS) are essential for manned spaceflight; without them, humans would not survive. Upcoming long-duration missions demand robust environmental control LSS (ECLSS) due to their insolation and limited prospect for immediate resupply. As part of LSS, water purification systems will require high reliability, sustainability, and efficiency due to transport mass limitations, because routine water delivery will be very difficult and costly to resupply future habitats. This suggests a highly effective treatment method and reuse of every wastewater source. A variety of wastewater streams are generated by crew, and although not all are currently treated, habitat success will require each stream to be treated and utilized as a ‘resource’ rather than 'waste’. These wastewater streams include human wastewater (urine, feces), food waste (plate waste, inedible plant biomass), humidity condensate, hygiene water (shower, oral, handwash), and laundry. Proven technologies are often relied upon due to long-term operations. For future, longer-term missions, this paradigm must shift to include technologies based on meeting mission requirements rather than sacrificing productivity in lieu of proven existing technology capabilities. Many physical, chemical, and biological water-processing technologies are proven and established for terrestrial applications. Herein, these technologies were collected into a ‘toolbox’ to perform possible functions towards effective water purification steps in reduced gravity. Selection criteria are dependent on approach (physical, chemical, or biological), complexity/components, terrestrial performance, and potential applicability to space life support. Utilization of this ‘toolbox’ approach provides a streamline methodology for technology development and down-selection into future architecture in direct response to the dynamic space life support requirements. Establishing the ‘toolbox’ also provides organized and efficient identification of the most appropriate technologies. From there, the technologies with the largest potential to be configured for mission requirements can be further developed and appropriately assessed. This presentation seeks to provide a comprehensive review of space life support water purification requirements and challenges, as well as to present a ‘toolbox’ methodology of available technologies to aid in the difficult process of selecting appropriate LSS water purification for short and long-term NASA mission architectures.
Extending the seven-day Shuttle Orbiter baseline mission requires an evaluation of the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) System in order to determine those changes necessary or desirable so that the Orbiter payload capability will not be seriously compromised. The ECLSS requirements and subsystem options for extended duration Orbiter missions are defined. Each major ECLS subsystem was examined, and potential methods of extending the mission capability were studied. The mission evaluated most extensively for this effort was a 30 day mission with a crew size of seven men. However, missions up to 90 days duration with crew sizes of three to ten men were also examined.
This paper outlines the current status of the Space Station Enrivonmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). The seven subsystem groups which comprise the ECLSS are identified and their functional descriptions are provided. The impact that the nominal and safe haven operating requirements have on the physical distribution, sizing, and number of ECLSS subsystems is described. The role that the major ECLSS interfaces with other Space Station systems and elements play in the ECLSS design is described.
The development and verification of a computer model for the design and analysis of the current Space Station ECLSS configuration are discussed. The model is used to resolve system-level design issues, such as sizing accumulators and assessing flow control techniques. Actual component verification efforts are outlined, and technical aspects of each component model are identified. The results obtained to date and plans for future analytical efforts are summarized.
A specific design is not presented, but the general philosophy regarding potential Environmental Control/Life Support System (ECLSS) requirements, concepts, issues, and technology needs are discussed. The focus is on a manned Mars mission occurring in the late 1990's. Discussions on the Trans-Mars Vehicle, the Mars Excursion Module (MEM), and a Martian base facility are covered. The functions, performance requirements, and design loads of a typical ECLSS are listed, and the issues and technology briefly discussed. Several ECLSS concepts and options are identified, and comparative weights and volumes are provided for these. Several aspects of the space station ECLSS are contrasted with the Mars element ECLSS.
The requirements for the Space Station are being defined. The Environmental Control/Life Support System (ECLSS) is one of its 13 systems. The ECLSS is further divided into five functional categories. Major ones are the Air Revitalization and Water Reclamation Systems. The paper presents ECLSS performance requirements, average design loads and fluids interfaces. The major cost savings of regenerable ECLSS techniques versus the open loop approach are quantified. Issues impacting ECLSS design are cited. Priority regenerable ECLSS developments are reviewed including the Electrochemical CO2 Concentrator, Static Feed Electrolyzer and Automated Control/Monitor Instrumentation. Baseline and alternative approaches are cited. The ECLSS planning issues are reviewed including functional boundaries, planning schedule, technology maturity definition and technology gaps. The paper concludes with a review of water electrolysis as a Space Station utility impacting ECLSS design.