SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Return on Investment”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

technology gaps↗

NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of the NASA Arc Jet Capabilities to Support Mission Requirements

NASA accomplishes its strategic goals through human and robotic exploration missions. Many of these missions require launching and landing or returning spacecraft with human or return samples through Earth's and other planetary atmospheres. Spacecraft entering an atmosphere are subjected to extreme aerothermal loads. Protecting against these extreme loads is a critical element of spacecraft design. The safety and success of the planned mission is a prime concern for the Agency, and risk mitigation requires the knowledgeable use of thermal protection systems to successfully withstand the high-energy states imposed on the vehicle. Arc jets provide ground-based testing for development and flight validation of re-entry vehicle thermal protection materials and are a critical capability and core competency of NASA. The Agency's primary hypersonic thermal testing capability resides at the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Center and was developed and built in the 1960s and 1970s. This capability was critical to the success of Apollo, Shuttle, Pioneer, Galileo, Mars Pathfinder, and Orion. But the capability and the infrastructure are beyond their design lives. The complexes urgently need strategic attention and investment to meet the future needs of the Agency. The Office of Chief Engineer (OCE) chartered the Arc Jet Evaluation Working Group (AJEWG), a team of experienced individuals from across the Nation, to capture perspectives and requirements from the arc jet user community and from the community that operates and maintains this capability and capacity. This report offers the AJEWG's findings and conclusions that are intended to inform the discussion surrounding potential strategic technical and investment strategies. The AJEWG was directed to employ a 30-year Agency-level view so that near-term issues did not cloud the findings and conclusions and did not dominate or limit any of the strategic options.

Calomino, Anthony↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thermal Protection System to Enable Ice Giant Aerocapture Mission for Delivering Both an Orbiter and an In Situ Probe

The Ice Giants have been identified as high priority science destinations in the last Decadal Survey [1] and could benefit from aerocapture as the primary method for orbit insertion [2]. A mass-efficient aerocapture system will enable the delivery of an orbiter along with an atmospheric probe (for in situ measurements to anchor global data collected by the orbiter) and possibly a lander at Triton [3]. Aerocapture could be executed either using low L/D rigid aeroshell with lift modulation (LMA) [4] or using deployable aeroshell using drag modulation (DMA) [3]. Nearly two decades ago, a NASA-funded team performed Neptune-Triton aerocapture studies with a mid-L/D lifting configuration [5] for achieving orbit using LMA. This study showed aerocapture challenges. Due to very high peak entry conditions combined with very high heat-load, a suite of TPS materials was required and this suite was deemed problematic from a qualification perspective, due test facility limitations. In the past 20 years, progress made in GN&C for lift-guided entry missions such as MSL, Orion EFT1, Mars 2020 and the upcoming Artemis missions, and the expertise in blunt body aerodynamics at large scale (~ 5m) has led the EDL community to conclude that aerocapture is a “go do” engineering activity and most technologies are in hand to propose missions with aerocapture [6] [7]. Aerocapture using DMA, currently in development, is an option for Ice Giant Missions. While DMA is simpler in some sense, due to ballistic entry and no need for lift-guided maneuvering, it has challenges and it’s maturity is lower. LMA and DMA both require one or more ablative Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials for the rigid aeroshell element. The ablative TPS needs to be robust and mass efficient due to the high heat loads and size of the rigid aeroshell. Currently, there are capable ablative thermal protection materials, e.g., Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environments Technology (HEEET), 3-D woven Mid-Density Carbon- Phenolic (3MDCP), and PICA (Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator) that are mature, i.e., at TRL 6 or higher. NASA also invested in Conformal PICA that was matured to TRL 5. Our goal is to evaluate the applicability of high TRL TPS and consider other design options. We first establish bounding aerocapture trajectories for a wide range of arrival conditions and the associated aerothermal environment. Based on the environments, we then determine the predicted TPS mass for the aeroshell [4]. In this presentation, we will outline the process by which we establish bounding aerocapture trajectories for hyperbolic excess velocities ranging from 27 km/s to 35 km/s, which are shown to be a range of velocities that can reduce the trip time from ~14 years to 8 years. The above velocity range translates to ~12 km/s to ~24 km/s arrival velocities at the planetary entry interface [2]. The velocity reduction required to achieve orbit ranges between ~2.5 km/s to 9.5 km/s for both Neptune and Triton. Propulsive insertion alone, due to the amount of fuel required to achieve the required velocity reduction, limits the science returned [2]. We establish the bounding aerocapture trajectories for a low L/D (~ 0.4) configuration for three different ballistic coefficients. The ballistic coefficient range is determined from three different aeroshell diameters of 3m, 4m and 5m and with an entry system mass of 2200 kg. With the above range of design parameters, we then determine conservative/bounding estimates of aerothermal environments by using a combination of CFD simulations and stagnation point heating estimates [7]. This engineering approach allows us to first assess the TPS need vs. TPS capability and determine the applicability of existing TPS. Once an applicable suite of TPS is determined, the TPS thickness and mass are computed. We show that the TPS mass fraction can be as low as 5% to as high as 20%, depending on total trip time reduction and other design parameters for a range of TPS. This is a large range for TPS mass fraction. We show PICA and HEEET can indeed enable aerocapture missions, but the missions incur a mass penalty. TPS mass savings, can be further reduced with the use of conformal PICA. Advancing the development of Conformal PICA to make it robust across the entire aerothermal environment (peak heat-flux, pressure and shear) range will result in TPS mass fractions of < 10% for Ice Giant aerocapture missions such as the Neptune-Triton mission. Aerocapture allows for not only shortening the trip time but enables larger mass to be placed in orbit. Furthermore, probes deployed from orbit will benefit in reduced entry environments allowing for a lower risk TPS implementation as compared to mission designs where the probe is released prior to orbit insertion. One of the challenges for the Ice Giant community is to ensure mission designs that maximize science and allow flexibility in the placement of the entry probe. The traditional approach to release the probe ahead of the orbiter may not optimize returned science. In this presentation, we will make the case for mature TPS such as HEEET and PICA. While these materials can enable aerocapture missions, completing the development of conformal PICA and extending Conformal PICA to be more robust, will have significant impact to TPS mass efficiency and significantly enhance science return for future Gas- and Ice-Giant missions.

E Venkatapathy↗

NASA NTRS1994

(abstract) A Low-Cost Mission to 2060 Chiron Based on the Pluto Fast Flyby

The Pluto Fast Flyby-based mission to Chiron described in this paper is a low cost, scientifically rewarding, focused mission in the outer solar system. The proposed mission will make a flyby of 2060 Chiron, an active 'comet' with over 10(sup 4) times the mass of Halley, and an eccentric, Saturn-crossing orbit which ranges from 8.5 to 19 AU. This mission concept achieves the flyby 4.2 years after launch on a direct trajectory from Earth, is independent of Jupiter launch windows, and fits within Discovery cost guidelines. This mission offers the scientific opportunity to examine a class of object left unsampled by the trail-blazing Mariners, Pioneers, Voyagers, and missions to Halley. Spacecraft reconnaissance of Chiron addresses unique objectives relating to cometary science, other small bodies, the structure of quasi-bound atmospheres on modest-sized bodies, and the origin of primitive bodies and the giant planets. Owing to Chiron's large size (180<D<370 km), unique nature, and unusual orbit, this mission is likely to draw significant public interest. As described by COMPLEX, the SSEC, and later the SSES, flybys are the appropriate scale missions for initial reconnaissance missions. Carrying three sophisticated instruments, the proposed flyby will return critical data about Chiron's size, shape, polar obliquity, atmosphere, surface morphology, surface composition, internal structure, surface activity (including the nature of Chiron's outbursts), and origin. Engineering analysis indicates that the spacecraft is capable of navigating to and encountering Chiron at close approach distances of less than 5 000 km, well inside the 50 000 to 150 000 km coma, and perhaps within the collisional chemistry zone of the coma. The low cost of the proposed Chiron mission is based on the opportunity to use the planned Pluto Flyby spare spacecraft and a Proton Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) (the pluto spacecraft is being designed to be compatible with a Proton launch). Backup launch opportunities on Delta II and Atlas ELVs are available. The Pluto Fast Flyby mission plans to develop a low cost ($150M), lightweight (<150 kg) outer planet spacecraft which is well suited to flyby reconnaissance in the outer solar system. This Chiron flyby mission is designed to leverage SSED's Pluto spacecraft investment into a scientifically valuable successor mission within the Discovery cost cap. Taking advantage of the spare spacecraft, we estimate the Discovery Chiron intercept mission can be launched for less than $100 M. We believe this makes a highly attractive proposal, which maintains US presence and leadership in the study of the outer solar system, and enables the first-time exploration of a wholly new class of planetary target, an outer solar system planetesimal.

2060 Chiron planetesimal flyby Pluto Fast Flyby sp↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) Transit Habitat (TH) Refinement Point of Departure (PoD) Design

As NASA prepares for the next human footsteps on the lunar surface, the Agency is already looking ahead to systems that will enable a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and mission to Mars, including a lunar Surface Habitat and Mars Transit Habitat (TH). This paper describes the latest NASA government reference design for the TH and how it will support NASA's Moon to Mars human exploration architecture. First, it will serve as a test and demonstration platform in lunar orbit, demonstrating capabilities required for long-duration microgravity human spaceflight as part of the lunar-Mars analog missions. Then, the TH will also serve as a major Mars habitation exploration element to support the crew during their transit from the lunar orbit to Mars and returning them safely to lunar orbit. This paper will cover several considerations contributing to the latest habitat design refinement, including data on the TH's concept of operations, system functional definition, subsystem assumptions, notional interior layouts, a detailed mass and volume breakdown, and trade studies and analyses required to close identified technology/ development/architecture gaps. In addition to a technical description of the TH, this paper describes how the current TH government reference design will achieve many of the current lunar and Mars mission goals. Additionally, there are many assumed technological advances needed to support the prescribed mission phases leading up to the crewed mission to Mars in the late 2030s. The paper will describe many of the TH systems requiring further technology development and identify architectural solutions to achieve these mass, reliability, autonomy, and crew health targets. As a whole, the data in the paper shows that a TH meeting the 43 metric tons launch mass/trans-Mars injection burn limits specified by the Evolvable Mars Campaign is achievable near the desired timeframe with moderate strategic investments including maintainable life support systems, re-purposable structures and packaging, and lightweight exercise modalities. It also identifies operational and technological options to reduce this mass to less than 41 metric tons, including staging of launch structure/packaging and alternate structural materials. The resulting design detail and data contained in this paper are intended to help teams across NASA and potential commercial, academic, or international partners understand the current performance targets of the Transit Habitat and vehicle interface considerations imposed by the latest Moon to Mars mission scope.

Habitation Systems↗

NASA NTRS2012

Contrasting Patterns of Damage and Recovery in Logged Amazon Forests From Small Footprint LiDAR Data

Tropical forests ecosystems respond dynamically to climate variability and disturbances on time scales of minutes to millennia. To date, our knowledge of disturbance and recovery processes in tropical forests is derived almost exclusively from networks of forest inventory plots. These plots typically sample small areas (less than or equal to 1 ha) in conservation units that are protected from logging and fire. Amazon forests with frequent disturbances from human activity remain under-studied. Ongoing negotiations on REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus enhancing forest carbon stocks) have placed additional emphasis on identifying degraded forests and quantifying changing carbon stocks in both degraded and intact tropical forests. We evaluated patterns of forest disturbance and recovery at four -1000 ha sites in the Brazilian Amazon using small footprint LiDAR data and coincident field measurements. Large area coverage with airborne LiDAR data in 2011-2012 included logged and unmanaged areas in Cotriguacu (Mato Grosso), Fiona do Jamari (Rondonia), and Floresta Estadual do Antimary (Acre), and unmanaged forest within Reserva Ducke (Amazonas). Logging infrastructure (skid trails, log decks, and roads) was identified using LiDAR returns from understory vegetation and validated based on field data. At each logged site, canopy gaps from logging activity and LiDAR metrics of canopy heights were used to quantify differences in forest structure between logged and unlogged areas. Contrasting patterns of harvesting operations and canopy damages at the three logged sites reflect different levels of pre-harvest planning (i.e., informal logging compared to state or national logging concessions), harvest intensity, and site conditions. Finally, we used multi-temporal LiDAR data from two sites, Reserva Ducke (2009, 2012) and Antimary (2010, 2011), to evaluate gap phase dynamics in unmanaged forest areas. The rates and patterns of canopy gap formation at these sites illustrate potential issues for separating logging damages from natural forest disturbances over longer time scales. Multi-temporal airborne LiDAR data and coincident field measurements provide complementary perspectives on disturbance and recovery processes in intact and degraded Amazon forests. Compared to forest inventory plots, the large size of each individual site permitted analyses of landscape-scale processes that would require extremely high investments to study using traditional forest inventory methods.

Morton, D. C.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) Transit Habitat Refinement Point of Departure Design

As NASA prepares for the next human footsteps on the lunar surface, the Agency is already looking ahead to systems that will enable a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and mission to Mars, including a lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH). This paper describes the latest NASA government reference design for the TH and how it will support NASA's Moon to Mars human exploration architecture. First, it will serve as a test and demonstration platform in lunar orbit, demonstrating capabilities required for long-duration microgravity human spaceflight as part of the lunar-Mars analog missions. Then, the TH will serve as a major Mars exploration element to support crew habitation during their transit from the Earth’s orbit to Mars and returning safely before TH’s return to a lunar orbit. This paper will cover several considerations contributing to the latest habitat design refinement, including the TH's concept of operations, system functional definition, subsystem assumptions, notional interior layouts, a detailed mass and volume breakdown, and identify future trade studies and analyses required to close identified technology/ development/architecture gaps. In addition to a technical description of the TH, this paper describes how the current TH government reference design will achieve many of the current lunar and Mars mission goals. Additionally, there are many assumed technological advances needed to support the prescribed mission phases leading up to the crewed mission to Mars in the late 2030s. The paper will describe many of the TH systems requiring further technology development and identify architectural solutions to achieve these mass, reliability, autonomy, and crew health targets. As a whole, the data shows the government reference TH design meeting the 26.4 metric ton launch /trans-Mars injection burn control mass limit outlined within NASA’s Moon to Mars Campaign. This is achievable near the desired timeframe with moderate strategic investments including maintainable life support systems, innovative structures configuration and materials, and system/ logistics packaging. The resulting design detail and data contained in this paper are intended to help teams across NASA and potential commercial, academic, or international partners understand the current performance targets of the Transit Habitat and vehicle interface considerations imposed by the latest Moon to Mars mission scope.

Habitation Systems↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA's Space Launch System: Momentum Builds Toward First Launch

NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) is gaining momentum toward the first launch of a new exploration-class heavy lift launch vehicle for international exploration and science initiatives. The SLS comprises an architecture that begins with a vehicle capable of launching 70 metric tons (t) into low Earth orbit. It will launch the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on its first autonomous flight beyond the Moon and back in December 2017. Its first crewed flight follows in 2021. SLS can evolve to a130-t lift capability and serve as a baseline for numerous robotic and human missions ranging from a Mars sample return to delivering the first astronauts to explore another planet. The SLS Program formally transitioned from the formulation phase to implementation with the successful completion of the rigorous Key Decision Point C review in 2014. As a result, the Agency authorized the Program to move forward to Critical Design Review, scheduled for 2015. In the NASA project life cycle process, SLS has completed 50 percent of its major milestones toward first flight. Every SLS element manufactured development hardware for testing over the past year. Accomplishments during 2013/2014 included manufacture of core stage test articles, preparations for qualification testing the solid rocket boosters and the RS-25 main engines, and shipment of the first flight hardware in preparation for the Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) in 2014. SLS was conceived with the goals of safety, affordability, and sustainability, while also providing unprecedented capability for human exploration and scientific discovery beyond Earth orbit. In an environment of economic challenges, the SLS team continues to meet ambitious budget and schedule targets through the studied use of hardware, infrastructure, and workforce investments the United States made in the last half century, while selectively using new technologies for design, manufacturing, and testing, as well as streamlined management approaches that have increased decision velocity and reduced associated costs. This paper will summarize recent SLS Program accomplishments, as well as the challenges and opportunities ahead for the most powerful and capable launch vehicle in history.

May, Todd A.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Multigenerational Independent Colony for Extraterrestrial Habitation, Autonomy, and Behavior Health (MICEHAB): An Investigation of a Long Duration, Partial Gravity, Autonomous Rodent Colony

The path from Earth to Mars requires exploration missions to be increasingly Earth-independent as the foundation is laid for a sustained human presence in the following decades. NASA pioneering of Mars will expand the boundaries of human exploration, as a sustainable presence on the surface requires humans to successfully reproduce in a partial gravity environment independent from Earth intervention. Before significant investment is made in capabilities leading to such pioneering efforts, the challenges of multigenerational mammalian reproduction in a partial gravity environment need be investigated. The Multi-generational Independent Colony for Extraterrestrial Habitation, Autonomy, and Behavior health is designed to study these challenges. The proposed concept is a conceptual, long duration, autonomous habitat designed to house rodents in a partial gravity environment with the goal of understanding the effects of partial gravity on mammalian reproduction over multiple generations and how to effectively design such a facility to operate autonomously while keeping the rodents healthy in order to achieve multiple generations. All systems are designed to feed forward directly to full-scale human missions to Mars. This paper presents the baseline design concept formulated after considering challenges in the mission and vehicle architectures such as: vehicle automation, automated crew health management/medical care, unique automated waste disposal and hygiene, handling of deceased crew members, reliable long-duration crew support systems, and radiation protection. This concept was selected from an architectural trade space considering the balance between mission science return and robotic and autonomy capabilities. The baseline design is described in detail including: transportation and facility operation constraints, artificial gravity system design, habitat design, and a full-scale mock-up demonstration of autonomous rodent care facilities. The proposed concept has the potential to integrate into existing mission architectures in order to achieve exploration objectives, and to demonstrate and mature common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions.

Rodgers, Erica M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Tight Fits for Americas Next Moon Rocket, Ares V

America has begun the development of a new heavy lift rocket which will enable humans to return to the moon and reach even farther destinations. Five decades ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration designed a system (called Saturn/Apollo) to carry men to the moon and back; the rocket which boosted them to the moon was the Saturn V. Saturn V was huge relative to contemporary rockets and is still the largest rocket ever launched. The new moon rocket is called Ares V. It will insert 40% more payload into low earth orbit than Saturn V; and after docking with the crew spacecraft, it will insert 50% more payload onto the translunar trajectory than Saturn V. The current design of Ares V calls for two liquid-fueled stages and 2 "strap-on" solid rockets. The solid rockets are extended-length versions of the solid rockets used on the Shuttle. The diameter of the liquid stages is at least as large as the first stage of the Saturn V; the height of the lower liquid stage (called the core stage) is longer than the external tank of the Shuttle. Huge rockets require huge infrastructure and, during the Saturn/Apollo era, America invested significantly in manufacturing, assembly and launch facilities which are still in use today. Since the Saturn/Apollo era, America has invested in additional infrastructure for the Shuttle program. Ares V must utilize this existing infrastructure, with reasonable modifications. Building a rocket with 50% more capability in the same buildings, testing it in the same test stands, shipping on the same canals under the same bridges, assembling it in the same building, rolling it to the pad on the same crawler, and launching it from the same launch pad is an engineering and logistics challenge which goes hand-in-hand with designing the structure, tanks, turbines, engines, software, etc. necessary to carry such a large payload to earth orbit and to the moon. This paper quantitatively discusses the significant "tight fits" that are constraining Ares V. The engineers designing and building the infrastructure for the Saturn/Apollo program usually added margins and growth capability; sometimes the size of existing facilities (such as the width of a draw bridge) was not a constraint. Ares V may utilize the "extra" space in the existing facilities and expand other tight fits. Some of the tight fits cannot be overcome without great expense; raising the roof on the Vertical Assembly Building for example. Other tight fits are easily overcome; the transporter at the manufacturing facility for the core stage can pass under low ceilings and later over a dike (without dragging the middle) by retracting or extending the struts which support the stage. Tight fits discussed in this paper include manufacturing (jigs, widths, heights, and local transportation), testing (test stand sizes and crane capability), transportation to the test stands and the launch site (barge, waterway, and rail), assembly (VAB internal dimensions and door size), roll-out limits, and launch pad size.

Jaap, John↗

NASA NTRS2019

The Acquisition, Containment, and Curation of Mars Samples on Earth

The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (henceforth AACO) is responsible for receiving and curating all of NASA’s extraterrestrial samples, current and future (as per NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7100.10E “Curation of Extraterrestrial Materials”). As such, the AACO coordinates sample capture, containment, and transportation to the curation facility as well as documents, preserves, prepares, and distributes all of the samples within NASA’s astromaterial collections for research, education, and public outreach. Since the lunar rock and soil samples returned during the Apollo Program, NASA’s first Class V Restricted Earth Return Missions, the AACO curates six other astromaterials collections. Lessons learned from each collection and respective missions (e.g. Apollo, Genesis, Stardust) as well as advancements in science and technology have informed the AACO’s plan for acquiring and curating Martian samples. Given the nature of the collection, a mobile and modular facility is recommended. The two broad requirements a Mars sample facility must maintain are: 1) the ability to contain the samples to protect the public from exposure of an “unknown unknown” biological agent and 2) ensure the scientific integrity of the samples are maintained (while maximizing scientific outcome). Although Apollo samples were eventually deemed safe and released to the scientific community for evaluation, there is no guarantee that this will be the case for Martian samples. Therefore, the facility in which the samples will be contained and investigated must be modular and able to accommodate an array of instrumentation that could be highly variable depending on the initial scientific outcomes. Furthermore, in order to facilitate proper sample capture and containment upon landing as well as sample distribution to other laboratories with proper containment, a mobile facility is a valuable investment.

Harrington, Andrea D.↗

NASA NTRS2016

EDL Pathfinder Missions

NASA is developing a long‐term strategy for achieving extended human missions to Mars in support of the policies outlined in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and National Space Policy. The Authorization Act states that "A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars." Echoing this is the National Space Policy, which directs that NASA should, "By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid‐2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth." Further defining this goal, NASA's 2014 Strategic Plan identifies that "Our long‐term goal is to send humans to Mars. Over the next two decades, we will develop and demonstrate the technologies and capabilities needed to send humans to explore the red planet and safely return them to Earth." Over the past several decades numerous assessments regarding human exploration of Mars have indicated that landing humans on the surface of Mars remains one of the key critical challenges. In 2015 NASA initiated an Agency‐wide assessment of the challenges associated with Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) of large payloads necessary for supporting human exploration of Mars. Due to the criticality and long‐lead nature of advancing EDL techniques, it is necessary to determine an appropriate strategy to improve the capability to land large payloads. This paper provides an overview of NASA's 2015 EDL assessment on understanding the key EDL risks with a focus on determining what "must" be tested at Mars. This process identified the various risks and potential risk mitigation strategies, that is, benefits of flight demonstration at Mars relative to terrestrial test, modeling, and analysis. The goal of the activity was to determine if a subscale demonstrator is necessary, or if NASA should take a direct path to a human‐scale lander. This assessment also provided insight into how EDL advancements align with other Agency Mars lander activities such as the technology portfolio investments and post‐2020 robotic Mars Exploration Program missions.

Drake, Bret G.↗

NASA NTRS2007

The Challenges of Integrating NASA's Human, Budget, and Data Capital within the Constellation Program's Exploration Launch Projects Office

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration directs NASA to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 and replace it with safe, reliable, and cost-effective space transportation systems for crew and cargo travel to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Such emerging space transportation initiatives face massive organizational challenges, including building and nurturing an experienced, dedicated team with the right skills for the required tasks; allocating and tracking the fiscal capital invested in achieving technical progress against an integrated master schedule; and turning generated data into useful knowledge that equips the team to design and develop superior products for customers and stakeholders. It has been more than 30 years since the Space Shuttle was designed; therefore, the current aerospace workforce has limited experience with developing new designs for human-rated spaceflight hardware. To accomplish these activities, NASA is using a wide range of state-of-the-art information technology tools that connect its diverse, decentralized teams and provide timely, accurate information for decision makers. In addition, business professionals are assisting technical managers with planning, tracking, and forecasting resource use against an integrated master schedule that horizontally and vertically interlinks hardware elements and milestone events. Furthermore, NASA is employing a wide variety of strategies to ensure that it has the motivated and qualified staff it needs for the tasks ahead. This paper discusses how NASA's Exploration Launch Projects Office, which is responsible for delivering these new launch vehicles, integrates its resources to create an engineering business environment that promotes mission success, which is defined by replacing the Space Shuttle by 2014 and returning to the Moon by 2020.

Kidd, Luanne↗

NASA NTRS1996

Advanced Space Propulsion

This presentation describes a number of advanced space propulsion technologies with the potential for meeting the need for dramatic reductions in the cost of access to space, and the need for new propulsion capabilities to enable bold new space exploration (and, ultimately, space exploitation) missions of the 21st century. For example, current Earth-to-orbit (e.g., low Earth orbit, LEO) launch costs are extremely high (ca. $10,000/kg); a factor 25 reduction (to ca. $400/kg) will be needed to produce the dramatic increases in space activities in both the civilian and government sectors identified in the Commercial Space Transportation Study (CSTS). Similarly, in the area of space exploration, all of the relatively 'easy' missions (e.g., robotic flybys, inner solar system orbiters and landers; and piloted short-duration Lunar missions) have been done. Ambitious missions of the next century (e.g., robotic outer-planet orbiters/probes, landers, rovers, sample returns; and piloted long-duration Lunar and Mars missions) will require major improvements in propulsion capability. In some cases, advanced propulsion can enable a mission by making it faster or more affordable, and in some cases, by directly enabling the mission (e.g., interstellar missions). As a general rule, advanced propulsion systems are attractive because of their low operating costs (e.g., higher specific impulse, ISD) and typically show the most benefit for relatively 'big' missions (i.e., missions with large payloads or AV, or a large overall mission model). In part, this is due to the intrinsic size of the advanced systems as compared to state-of-the-art (SOTA) chemical propulsion systems. Also, advanced systems often have a large 'infrastructure' cost, either in the form of initial R&D costs or in facilities hardware costs (e.g., laser or microwave transmission ground stations for beamed energy propulsion). These costs must then be amortized over a large mission to be cost-competitive with a SOTA system with a low initial development and infrastructure cost and a high operating cost. Note however that this has resulted in a 'Catch 22' standoff between the need for large initial investment that is amortized over many launches to reduce costs, and the limited number of launches possible at today's launch costs. Some examples of missions enabled (either in cost or capability) by advanced propulsion include long-life station-keeping or micro-spacecraft applications using electric propulsion or BMDO-derived micro-thrusters, low-cost orbit raising (LEO to GEO or Lunar orbit) using electric propulsion, robotic planetary missions using aerobraking or electric propulsion, piloted Mars missions using aerobraking and/or propellant production from Martian resources, very fast (100-day round-trip) piloted Mars missions using fission or fusion propulsion, and, finally, interstellar missions using fusion, antimatter, or beamed energy. The NASA Advanced Propulsion Technology program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is aimed at assessing the feasibility of a range of near-term to far term advanced propulsion technologies that have the potential to reduce costs and/or enable future space activities. The program includes cooperative modeling and research activities between JPL and various universities and industry; and directly supported independent research at universities and industry. The cooperative program consists of mission studies, research and development of ion engine technology using C60 (Buckminsterfullerene) propellant, and research and development of lithium-propellant Lorentz-force accelerator (LFA) engine technology. The university/industry-supported research includes modeling and proof-of-concept experiments in advanced, high-lsp, long-life electric propulsion, and in fusion propulsion.

Frisbee, Robert H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Capability Technology Decisions

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 may be closed 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 very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

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 may be closed 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 very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗