Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “autonomous power control”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 415 records · Page 23

Science Benefits of Onboard Spacecraft Navigation

Primitive bodies (asteroids and comets), which have remained relatively unaltered since their formation, are important targets for scientific missions that seek to understand the evolution of the solar system. Often the first step is to fly by these bodies with robotic spacecraft. The key to maximizing data returns from these flybys is to determine the spacecraft trajectory relative to the target body-in short, navigate the spacecraft- with sufficient accuracy so that the target is guaranteed to be in the instruments' field of view. The most powerful navigation data in these scenarios are images taken by the spacecraft of the target against a known star field (onboard astrometry). Traditionally, the relative trajectory of the spacecraft must be estimated hours to days in advance using images collected by the spacecraft. This is because of (1)!the long round-trip light times between the spacecraft and the Earth and (2)!the time needed to downlink and process navigation data on the ground, make decisions based on the result, and build and uplink instrument pointing sequences from the results. The light time and processing time compromise navigation accuracy considerably, because there is not enough time to use more accurate data collected closer to the target-such data are more accurate because the angular capability of the onboard astrometry is essentially constant as the distance to the target decreases, resulting in better "plane-of- sky" knowledge of the target. Excellent examples of these timing limitations are high-speed comet encounters. Comets are difficult to observe up close; their orbits often limit scientists to brief, rapid flybys, and their coma further restricts viewers from seeing the nucleus in any detail, unless they can view the nucleus at close range. Comet nuclei details are typically discernable for much shorter durations than the roundtrip light time to Earth, so robotic spacecraft must be able to perform onboard navigation. This onboard navigation can be accomplished through a self- contained system that by eliminating light time restrictions dramatically improves the relative trajectory knowledge and control and subsequently increases the amount of quality data collected. Flybys are one-time events, so the system's underlying algorithms and software must be extremely robust. The autonomous software must also be able to cope with the unknown size, shape, and orientation of the previously unseen comet nucleus. Furthermore, algorithms must be reliable in the presence of imperfections and/or damage to onboard cameras accrued after many years of deep-space operations. The AutoNav operational flight software packages, developed by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) under contract with NASA, meet all these requirements. They have been directly responsible for the successful encounters on all of NASA's close-up comet-imaging missions (see Figure !1). AutoNav is the only system to date that has autonomously tracked comet nuclei during encounters and performed autonomous interplanetary navigation. AutoNav has enabled five cometary flyby missions (Table!1) residing on four NASA spacecraft provided by three different spacecraft builders. Using this software, missions were able to process a combined total of nearly 1000 images previously unseen by humans. By eliminating the need to navigate spacecraft from Earth, the accuracy gained by AutoNav during flybys compared to ground-based navigation is about 1!order of magnitude in targeting and 2!orders of magnitude in time of flight. These benefits ensure that pointing errors do not compromise data gathered during flybys. In addition, these benefits can be applied to flybys of other solar system objects, flybys at much slower relative velocities, mosaic imaging campaigns, and other proximity activities (e.g., orbiting, hovering, and descent/ascent).

Autonomy↗

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗

Earth-Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) Concept of Operations

In contrast to the current crew health paradigm for low-Earth orbit and Lunar missions, which depends on real-time communication with Mission Control, deep-space exploration missions will require a significant shift in medical operations. This shift is driven by the constraints of operating at a considerable distance from Earth, such as resource limitations—lack of resupply, restricted mass, power, volume, and data—as well as communication delays and the inability to evacuate back to Earth during emergencies. To move toward a more self-reliant medical model, a strategy is needed to gradually increase space-based crew autonomy and reduce risks to mission success in the challenging environment of deep space. This transformative change, known as "Earth-Independent Medical Operations" (EIMO), explores the gradual transfer of medical care and decision-making from Earth-based support to space-based systems. The goal of this transition is to enhance astronaut health and performance while minimizing mission risks. EIMO requires the development of a medical system that integrates seamlessly with mission planning, vehicle and spacesuit design, and data architecture. This integration is crucial for building a robust medical infrastructure that not only safeguards astronaut well-being but also ensures overall mission success. The Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has revised the EIMO model-based Concept of Operations (ConOps) which outlines an initial vision for EIMO. The ConOps, which is built on the stakeholders’ need, system goals, and objectives (NGOs), presents an array of in-mission scenarios that span a wide range of medical conditions demonstrating the system’s capabilities from basic to complex events. Developed by a multidisciplinary team of systems engineers, scientists, and clinicians within ExMC, the ConOps revision includes two new scenarios(Barotrauma and Self-Medical Management and Behavioral Health and Chronic Medical Care), and implementation of findings from EIMO technical interchange meetings that focused on data and training. The envisioned EIMO Medical System (MS) operates as a system of systems, gathering data from various sources such as reference databases, real-time wearable sensors, point-of-care diagnostics, and environmental controls. The MS also incorporates advanced training tools to support autonomous medical care, assisting the Crew Medical Officer (CMO) during medical events where Ground Support is either unavailable or communication-delayed beyond practicality. Furthermore, MS functions and capabilities were decomposed from the scenarios to establish foundational requirements for EIMO and traced to the NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standard(NASA-STD-3001, Volumes 1 and 2). These traces were performed to gain insights on the alignment of EIMO requirements with the NASA standard. This work serves as an initial recommendation to increase crew autonomy gradually and safely for Mars missions and future deep-space exploration.

medical system↗

Robotic and Human-Tended Collaborative Drilling Automation for Subsurface Exploration

Future in-situ lunar/martian resource utilization and characterization, as well as the scientific search for life on Mars, will require access to the subsurface and hence drilling. Drilling on Earth is hard - an art form more than an engineering discipline. Human operators listen and feel drill string vibrations coming from kilometers underground. Abundant mass and energy make it possible for terrestrial drilling to employ brute-force approaches to failure recovery and system performance issues. Space drilling will require intelligent and autonomous systems for robotic exploration and to support human exploration. Eventual in-situ resource utilization will require deep drilling with probable human-tended operation of large-bore drills, but initial lunar subsurface exploration and near-term ISRU will be accomplished with lightweight, rover-deployable or standalone drills capable of penetrating a few tens of meters in depth. These lightweight exploration drills have a direct counterpart in terrestrial prospecting and ore-body location, and will be designed to operate either human-tended or automated. NASA and industry now are acquiring experience in developing and building low-mass automated planetary prototype drills to design and build a pre-flight lunar prototype targeted for 2011-12 flight opportunities. A successful system will include development of drilling hardware, and automated control software to operate it safely and effectively. This includes control of the drilling hardware, state estimation of both the hardware and the lithography being drilled and state of the hole, and potentially planning and scheduling software suitable for uncertain situations such as drilling. Given that Humans on the Moon or Mars are unlikely to be able to spend protracted EVA periods at a drill site, both human-tended and robotic access to planetary subsurfaces will require some degree of standalone, autonomous drilling capability. Human-robotic coordination will be important, either between a robotic drill and humans on Earth, or a human-tended drill and its visiting crew. The Mars Analog Rio Tinto Experiment (MARTE) is a current project that studies and simulates the remote science operations between an automated drill in Spain and a distant, distributed human science team. The Drilling Automation for Mars Exploration (DAME) project, by contrast: is developing and testing standalone automation at a lunar/martian impact crater analog site in Arctic Canada. The drill hardware in both projects is a hardened, evolved version of the Advanced Deep Drill (ADD) developed by Honeybee Robotics for the Mars Subsurface Program. The current ADD is capable of 20m, and the DAME project is developing diagnostic and executive software for hands-off surface operations of the evolved version of this drill. The current drill automation architecture being developed by NASA and tested in 2004-06 at analog sites in the Arctic and Spain will add downhole diagnosis of different strata, bit wear detection, and dynamic replanning capabilities when unexpected failures or drilling conditions are discovered in conjunction with simulated mission operations and remote science planning. The most important determinant of future 1unar and martian drilling automation and staffing requirements will be the actual performance of automated prototype drilling hardware systems in field trials in simulated mission operations. It is difficult to accurately predict the level of automation and human interaction that will be needed for a lunar-deployed drill without first having extensive experience with the robotic control of prototype drill systems under realistic analog field conditions. Drill-specific failure modes and software design flaws will become most apparent at this stage. DAME will develop and test drill automation software and hardware under stressful operating conditions during several planned field campaigns. Initial results from summer 2004 tests show seven identifi distinct failure modes of the drill: cuttings-removal issues with low-power drilling into permafrost, and successful steps at executive control and initial automation.

Glass, Brian↗

Low SWaP Onboard Satellite Navigation, Guidance, and Control Technology

Onboard autonomy is a necessity for responsive space operations. Autonomous navigation, guidance, and control (NGC) enables space missions to reduce their dependence on high demand ground assets and costly ground personnel. It also allows for in-situ decision making and higher return on mission data. A flight software and hardware system providing this capability, called “autoNGC,” is currently being developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center for infusion into multiple future missions. The first build of autoNGC, providing autonomous navigation for lunar orbiting spacecraft, is targeted for completion by Fall 2024. It provides sensor fusion of multiple measurement types including pseudo-range from a weak signal Global Navigation Satellite Service (GNSS) receiver, 1-way and 2-way direct to Earth (DTE) range and Doppler, bearing and range from optical camera sensed images, and an accelerometer. AutoNGC is also being targeted for future missions that involve small body proximity operations, Sun Earth Libration point orbits, and distributed systems missions (DSMs) including those at outer planets. AutoNGC flight software is being built upon the plug-and-play architecture of the core Flight System (cFS) [Ref. 1]. Figure (Slide 7) shows the message-based software bus layout of various software applications (“apps”) consisting of the standard cFS apps and autoNGC interface apps and libraries. Accurate onboard navigation and timing is obtained through the Goddard Enhanced Onboard Navigation System (GEONS) software library [Ref. 2], which fuses different measurement types through an extended Kalman filter (EKF) framework. Optical measurements that are ingested in GEONS are provided by the cFS Goddard Image Analysis and Navigation Tool (cGIANT) app [Ref. 3]. This app processes optical images to extract the bearing angles of the centroid of the imaged body (near or far), the range to the imaged body, and/or of the features on the surface of a body to perform terrain relative navigation (TRN). Measurement of range to the body’s center of mass can also be derived from the detection of the limb. The first build of autoNGC for a lunar orbiting spacecraft is a minimal size, weight, and power (SWaP) hardware design allowing for inclusion into CubeSats and SmallSat-size class buses. Advancements in miniaturized space processors, such as the SpaceCube 3.0 Mini and the SpaceCube Mini-Z [Ref. 4] are utilized for low SWaP while maintaining a high level of performance. Figure (Slide 11) shows the composition of the first autoNGC build. The current enclosure design has dimensions 12 cm x 17 cm x 13.5 cm. The box mass is expected to be less than 2 kg, and the nominal power is 21 W. The hardware interfaces are designed for flexibility with a variety of sensor inputs. The achievable navigation performance depends on the sensors utilized, including the onboard clock for 1-way pseudo-range measurements. Analysis using a configuration that consists of weak signal GPS, TRN, and 1-way DTE has shown position and velocity accuracies of 10 meters and 2 cm/s (3-σ ) RSS, respectively, with onboard time knowledge estimated to better than 13 ns (3-σ ), for a spacecraft in a representative 12-hour eccentric lunar orbit. Other measurement types such as x-rays from known pulsars (called XNAV) and cross-links can also be processed in GEONS. With the plug-and-play architecture of autoNGC, cFS apps can easily be added and replaced, even after launch. Goddard is actively seeking partners to collaborate in the development of additional capabilities for autoNGC, including industry, academia, and others across the US Government. Plans are being formulated to make the autoNGC software platform available for use by any US government organization to leverage the non-recurring engineering associated with the development of onboard autonomous NGC 3 capabilities. As advancements in space qualified sensors, microprocessors, and algorithms are made, the autoNGC platform provides a ready starting point for inclusion of these technologies.

C. J. Gramling↗

Autonomous Control of Space Nuclear Reactors

Nuclear reactors to support future robotic and manned missions impose new and innovative technological requirements for their control and protection instrumentation. Long-duration surface missions necessitate reliable autonomous operation, and manned missions impose added requirements for failsafe reactor protection. There is a need for an advanced instrumentation and control system for space-nuclear reactors that addresses both aspects of autonomous operation and safety. The Reactor Instrumentation and Control System (RICS) consists of two functionally independent systems: the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and the Supervision and Control System (SCS). Through these two systems, the RICS both supervises and controls a nuclear reactor during normal operational states, as well as monitors the operation of the reactor and, upon sensing a system anomaly, automatically takes the appropriate actions to prevent an unsafe or potentially unsafe condition from occurring. The RPS encompasses all electrical and mechanical devices and circuitry, from sensors to actuation device output terminals. The SCS contains a comprehensive data acquisition system to measure continuously different groups of variables consisting of primary measurement elements, transmitters, or conditioning modules. These reactor control variables can be categorized into two groups: those directly related to the behavior of the core (known as nuclear variables) and those related to secondary systems (known as process variables). Reliable closed-loop reactor control is achieved by processing the acquired variables and actuating the appropriate device drivers to maintain the reactor in a safe operating state. The SCS must prevent a deviation from the reactor nominal conditions by managing limitation functions in order to avoid RPS actions. The RICS has four identical redundancies that comply with physical separation, electrical isolation, and functional independence. This architecture complies with the safety requirements of a nuclear reactor and provides high availability to the host system. The RICS is intended to interface with a host computer (the computer of the spacecraft where the reactor is mounted). The RICS leverages the safety features inherent in Earth-based reactors and also integrates the wide range neutron detector (WRND). A neutron detector provides the input that allows the RICS to do its job. The RICS is based on proven technology currently in use at a nuclear research facility. In its most basic form, the RICS is a ruggedized, compact data-acquisition and control system that could be adapted to support a wide variety of harsh environments. As such, the RICS could be a useful instrument outside the scope of a nuclear reactor, including military applications where failsafe data acquisition and control is required with stringent size, weight, and power constraints.

Merk, John↗

Electric Sail Tether Deployment System for CubeSats

An Electric Sail (E-Sail) propulsion system consists of long, thin tethers - positively-charged wires extending radially and symmetrically outward from a spacecraft. Tethers must be biased using a high-voltage power supply to ensure that the solar wind produces thrust. While the E-Sail concept shows great promise for flying heliopause missions with higher characteristic acceleration than solar sails, there are significant technical challenges related to deploying and controlling multiple tethers. A typical full-scale design involves a hub and spoke arrangement of 10 to 100 tethers, each 20 km long. In the last 20 years, there have been multiple space mission failures due to tether deployment and control issues, and most configurations involved a single tether. This paper describes an effort to develop and test a simple yet robust single-tether deployment system for a two-6U CubeSat configuration. The project included the following: a) Tether dynamic modeling/simulation b) E-Sail single-tether prototype development and testing c) Space environmental effects testing to identify best materials for further development. These three areas of investigation were needed to provide technical rationale for an E-Sail flight demonstration mission that is expected to be proposed for the 2022 time frame. The project team used an “agile” engineering approach in which E-Sail single-tether prototype designs were iteratively developed and tested to solve problems and identify design improvements. The agile approach was ideal for this low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) project because tether deployer development involved many unknowns in prototype development that could only be discovered through iterative cycles of construction and testing. Extensive modeling and simulation were accomplished for three types of tether deployment: a) Stage 1: propulsive separation with one 6U fixed b) Stage 2: propulsive spin-up with one 6U fixed c) Stage 3: propulsive spin-up with both 6Us free Simulation results were valuable for understanding the propulsive and braking forces needed for controlled tether deployment. This paper describes the evolution, insights, and test/ performance data related to the resultant single-tether two-6U E-Sail test article which has been demonstrated in a test laboratory. The development effort suggests near-term work needed to achieve a useful flight demonstration, and provides ideas for how multiple-tether deployment systems might evolve going forward. A planned next-generation E-Sail prototype will include autonomous propulsive tether deployment while monitoring tether tension, location on the floor, distance between tether ends, acceleration, velocity, and propellant used.

Tinker, Michael↗

Helicopter Flight Test of a Compact, Real-Time 3-D Flash Lidar for Imaging Hazardous Terrain During Planetary Landing

A second generation, compact, real-time, air-cooled 3-D imaging Flash Lidar sensor system, developed from a number of cutting-edge components from industry and NASA, is lab characterized and helicopter flight tested under the Autonomous Precision Landing and Hazard Detection and Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) project. The ALHAT project is seeking to develop a guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) and sensing system based on lidar technology capable of enabling safe, precise crewed or robotic landings in challenging terrain on planetary bodies under any ambient lighting conditions. The Flash Lidar incorporates a 3-D imaging video camera based on Indium-Gallium-Arsenide Avalanche Photo Diode and novel micro-electronic technology for a 128 x 128 pixel array operating at a video rate of 20 Hz, a high pulse-energy 1.06 μm Neodymium-doped: Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser, a remote laser safety termination system, high performance transmitter and receiver optics with one and five degrees field-of-view (FOV), enhanced onboard thermal control, as well as a compact and self-contained suite of support electronics housed in a single box and built around a PC-104 architecture to enable autonomous operations. The Flash Lidar was developed and then characterized at two NASA-Langley Research Center (LaRC) outdoor laser test range facilities both statically and dynamically, integrated with other ALHAT GN&C subsystems from partner organizations, and installed onto a Bell UH-1H Iroquois "Huey" helicopter at LaRC. The integrated system was flight tested at the NASA-Kennedy Space Center (KSC) on simulated lunar approach to a custom hazard field consisting of rocks, craters, hazardous slopes, and safe-sites near the Shuttle Landing Facility runway starting at slant ranges of 750 m. In order to evaluate different methods of achieving hazard detection, the lidar, in conjunction with the ALHAT hazard detection and GN&C system, operates in both a narrow 1deg FOV raster-scanning mode in which successive, gimbaled images of the hazard field are mosaicked together as well as in a wider, 4.85deg FOV staring mode in which digital magnification, via a novel 3-D superresolution technique, is used to effectively achieve the same spatial precision attained with the more narrow FOV optics. The lidar generates calibrated and corrected 3-D range images of the hazard field in real-time and passes them to the ALHAT Hazard Detection System (HDS) which stitches the images together to generate on-the-fly Digital Elevation Maps (DEM's) and identifies hazards and safe-landing sites which the ALHAT GN&C system can then use to guide the host vehicle to a safe landing on the selected site. Results indicate that, for the KSC hazard field, the lidar operational range extends from 100m to 1.35 km for a 30 degree line-of-sight angle and a range precision as low as 8 cm which permits hazards as small as 25 cm to be identified. Based on the Flash Lidar images, the HDS correctly found and reported safe sites in near-real-time during several of the flights. A follow-on field test, planned for 2013, seeks to complete the closing of the GN&C loop for fully-autonomous operations on-board the Morpheus robotic, rocket-powered, free-flyer test bed in which the ALHAT system would scan the KSC hazard field (which was vetted during the present testing) and command the vehicle to landing on one of the selected safe sites.

Roback, VIncent E.↗

Free-Flying Magnetometer Data System

The Free-Flying Magnetometer (FFM) is an autonomous "sensorcraft" developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for the Enstrophy sounding rocket mission. This mission was a collaborative project between the University of New Hampshire, Cornell University and JPL. The science goal of the mission was the study of current filamentation phenomena in the northern auroral region through multipoint measurements of magnetic field. The technical objective of the mission was the proof of concept of the JPL FFM design and the demonstration of an in-situ multipoint measurement technique employing many free-flying spacecraft. Four FFMs were successfully deployed from a sounding rocket launched from Poker Flats, Alaska on February 11, 1999. These hockey-puck-sized (80 mm diameter, 38 mm. height, 250 gram mass) free flyers each carry a miniature 3-axis flux-gate magnetometer that output +/- 2 V signals corresponding to a +/- 60,000 nT measurement range for each axis. The FFM uses a synchronized four-channel Sigma(Delta) Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) having a dynamic range of +/- 2.5V and converting at a rate of 279 samples/second/channel. Three channels are used to digitize the magnetometer signals to 17-bit (1.144 nT/bit) resolution. The fourth ADC channel is multiplexed for system monitoring of four temperature sensors and two battery voltages. The FFM also contains two sun sensors, a laser diode which emits a fan-shaped beam, a miniature S-band transmitter for direct communication to the ground station antennas, an ultra-stable Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator (TCXO) clock, an integrated data subsystem implemented in a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a 4 Mbit Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) for data storage and Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries for power. Communicating commands to the FFM prior to deployment is achieved with an infrared (IR) link. The FFM IR receiver responds to 9-bit pulse coded signals that are generated by an IR Light Emitting Diode (LED) in the payload for turning FFM power on or off and placing the FFM in a test mode or flight mode. The IR links are also used to synchronize (zero) the clocks onboard all the FFMs through a reset pulse originating from the payload GPS receiver that is issued when the FFMs are in flight mode. The FPGA based data subsystem manages continuous data collection from the four ADC channels and sun sensors, formatting and storing the data to SRAM, and controlling downlink transmission. The transmitter is powered only after a 2547 frame SRAM buffer has been filled (approx. 5 minutes of data). The data is Viterbi encoded and sent to the S-band transmitter via a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) buffer who's output is clocked at 100 bits/second. After the 26-second transmission, the transmitter is turned off to reduce noise coupling to the sensitive magnetometer. The data subsystem control consists of a master state machine that performs data flow management and is interfaced through a prioritized interrupt scheme to state machines that service the ADC, sun sensors and transmitter FIFO. Continuous data collection prevents the missing of data during transmission and provides implicit time tagging of the data acquired by the ADC because of synchronization with the TCXO clock.

Blaes, B.↗

Testing of Advanced Capabilities to Enable In-time Safety Management and Assurance for Future Flight Operations

In order to refine an initial Concept of Operations, explore Concepts of Use, and expose/validate requirements for future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS), testing architectures were created, along with a set of capabilities and underlying information exchange protocols. These systems were conceived and developed based on hazards associated with two envisioned urban area flight domains: (1) highly autonomous small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) operating at low altitudes, and (2) highly autonomous air taxis. The initial scope of this development is described in [1]; this report provides an update, focusing on the subsequent developments and test activities. As stated in [1], it is important to note that there are many capabilities already in use by the industry (or soon to be in use) that will play critical roles in future IASMS designs. Those reported here were developed to address a gap in the current state-of-the-art regarding specific hazards/risks, and/or to allow for investigation of the interplay between and across hazard types — particularly regarding how overall safety risk can be reduced or managed effectively. Results of testing and development activities are organized by the operational phase wherein a particular capability would be employed (i.e., preflight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line). Pre-flight: A set of capabilities were developed to help mitigate safety risk prior to flight (e.g., during flight and mission planning). Results of testing summarize (1) validation activities to raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and (2) evaluation activities where the capabilities were applied to flight/mission planning procedures and used by operators/pilots. For the latter, flight plans were automatically assessed, and operators/pilots were notified of hazardous flight segments so as to enable adjustment of the flight plan and re-evaluation, and/or to better inform go/no-go decisions. Capabilities addressed hazards associated with power consumption, third-party risk, wind, navigation system performance, radiofrequency interference, and proximity to geo-spatial threats (e.g., buildings, trees, and no-fly zones). In-flight: Flight experiments tested capabilities that detect and respond to hazards encountered during flight. In the first series, safety hazards were monitored and assessed onboard, and system-generated mitigation maneuvers were recorded (but not acted upon by the vehicle). In the second series, mitigation maneuver commands directed the aircraft in response to safety hazards (i.e., auto-mitigation). The sUAS used for testing is described in full, as is the test architecture, which included commercial avionics, research avionics, and onboard software designed to detect, assess, and respond to hazards. The onboard system was designed as a run-time assurance framework, consistent with [2] and supportive of both supervisory and automated modes. The primary functions included: real-time risk assessment (RTRA), auto-pilot monitoring, constraint monitoring, and contingency select/triggering. RTRA performs integrated risk assessment considering data from several hazard-related monitors (e.g., battery, motors, navigation, communications, population density, and loss-of-control). Post-flight/off-line: Data monitored and recorded during flights can enable IASMS capabilities that execute after flights have completed (or “off-line”). These include: (1) the ability to identify anomalies and trends that may only be observable when comparing data spanning a number of similar flights; (2) the ability to update and validate pre-flight and in-flight capabilities and any underlying models to improve their performance; (3) the ability to report anomalies/off-nominals that may indicate design changes or maintenance actions are needed; and (4) the ability for humans involved in operations to report safety-relevant observations to help in understanding the flight data and/or the operational context of a flight. Progress on three such capabilities is summarized; the first investigates anomaly detection given a limited set of flight logs and applies an approach previously used for space operations. The second explores what could be identified using a larger set of flight logs, including from web-based forums where flight logs are posted by sUAS autopilot users. The third creates a new means of collecting information on UAS incidents and accidents via the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

sUAS↗

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗

Some Aeronautical Communications Experiments

Classically there has existed an asymmetry between the computing and communicating sides of aerospace systems. Over the past few decades, this asymmetry has shifted to favoring communication link technologies, meaning that advancements in available central processing units (CPUs), storage devices, and internal data buses have stagnated. Indeed, the increased emphasis placed on refining subsystem performance such as with antenna bandwidth in phased arrays, amplifier power efficiency, software defined radio (SDR) flexibility and encoding for data compression and error correction has given rise to successful debuts of multi-gigabit-per-second data return from long space-link distances. These accomplishments are easily quantifiable through link budgets and illustrate what is possible, but also reveal the deficiencies in overall communications capabilities. In particular, the ever-accelerating presence of aerospace vehicles gives rise to newer and larger classes of challenges to address the needs of 21st century systems. Furthermore remote sensing and imaging capabilities have far outpaced our ability to transmit their products to the ground, so we are increasingly dependent on pre-processing and downselection to contend with the communications bottleneck. No longer may we depend upon the constrained logistics in delivering end-to-end data delivery through manual reconfigurations, static event scheduling and execution on a per-vehicle basis, for these methods do not scale and therefore must give way to dynamic, networked approaches with an overall systems view in mind. Emerging mission requirements exhibit a trend toward multiple smaller-scale vehicles working together to perform dissimilar observations. Such operations necessitate sensor fusion across a constellation, and where data processing may be distributed throughout a fairly disconnected network whose topology changes over time in non-deterministic manners. Individual communications link performance is still very relevant to deploying an effective communications system, but now must be embedded within a greater architecture of capability to optimally utilize the bandwidth available from each link to generate an ultimate end-to-end quality of service. The deleterious effects of timing uncertainty across the arrangement presents a challenge to measurement synchronization and delivery, so a successful deployed system needs to be tolerant to the delays inherent in time-of-light between elements and digital processing latencies existing at each node. In this presentation we share the flight test results from a high performance Gbps laser communications terminal evaluated with a suite of store and forward capabilities called High-rate Delay Tolerant Networking (HDTN). The communications payload is operated over Lake Erie across a range of configurations including several convergence layers, and is evaluated to determine recovery time after link disruptions, information loss, efficiency and speed. The effectiveness of utilizing a flying laboratory to increase the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of an integrated system in relevant environments is discussed, as well as the value of conducting aeronautics experiments to retire risk for technology infusion into space missions. Upcoming flight campaigns will be presented, including opportunities to demonstrate secure command and control, data intensive hyperspectral imaging, quantum link characterization, 4k High Definition (HD) video streaming and internetworked space-ground-aero relay operations. These experiments will pave the way for future missions which will depend upon interoperability across disparate government and privately owned networks, involve contention with uncertain and dynamic timing, and require agility to autonomously configure optimal parameters across networks of ever-increasing size and complexity to ensure data delivery. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/scan/acs/tech-studies/dtn/

Daniel Raible↗

Using Model-Based Reasoning for Autonomous Instrument Operation

Multiprobe missions are an important part of NASA's future: Cluster, Magnetospheric Multi Scale, Global Electrodynamics and Magnetospheric Constellation are representatives from the Sun-Earth Connections Theme. To make such missions robust, reliable, and affordable, ideally the many spacecraft of a constellation must be at least as easy to operate as one spacecraft is today. To support this need for scalability, science instrumentation must become increasingly easy to operate, even as this same instrumentation becomes more capable and advanced. Communication and control resources will be at a premium for future instruments. Many missions will be out of contact with ground operators for extended periods either to reduce operations cost or because of orbits that limit communication to weekly perigee transits. Autonomous capability is necessary if such missions are to effectively achieve their operational objectives. An autonomous system is one that acts given its situation in a mission appropriate manner without external direction to achieve mission goals. To achieve this capability autonomy must be built into the system through judicious design or through a built-in intelligence that recognizes system state and manages system response. To recognize desired or undesired system states, the system must have an implicit or explicit understanding of its expected states given its history and self observations. The systems we are concerned with, science instruments, can have stringent requirements for system state knowledge in addition to requirements driven by health and safety concerns. Without accurate knowledge of the system state, the usefulness of the science instrument may be severely limited. At the same time, health and safety concerns often lead to overly conservative instrument operations further reducing the effectiveness of the instrument. These requirements, coupled with overall mission requirements including lack of communication opportunities and tolerance of environmental hazards, frame the problem of constructing autonomous science instruments. we are developing a model of the Low Energy Neutral Atom instrument (LENA) that is currently flying on board the Imager for Magnetosphere-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft. LENA is a particle detector that uses high voltage electrostatic optics and time-of-flight mass spectrometry to image neutral atom emissions from the denser regions of the Earth's magnetosphere. As with most spacecraft borne science instruments, phenomena in addition to neutral atoms are detected by LENA. Solar radiation and energetic particles from Earth's radiation belts are of particular concern because they may help generate currents that may compromise LENA's long term performance. An explicit model of the instrument response has been constructed and is currently in use on board IMAGE to dynamically adapt LENA to the presence or absence of energetic background radiations. The components of LENA are common in space science instrumentation, and lessons learned by modelling this system may be applied to other instruments. This work demonstrates that a model-based approach can be used to enhance science instrument effectiveness. Our future work involves the extension of these methods to cover more aspects of LENA operation and the generalization to other space science instrumentation.

Johnson, Mike↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface, is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

Earth-Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) Concept of Operations

Compared to the current paradigm for crew health in low-Earth orbit and Lunar missions that rely on constant communication with Mission Control, there is an anticipated shift in medical operations for deep-space exploration missions. This shift stems from mission constraints imposed by the considerable distance from Earth, which include resource limitations due to a lack of resupply, mass, power, volume, and data limitations, challenges imposed by communication latency and the inability to evacuate in case of emergencies. To transition towards a more self-reliant medical approach, a comprehensive strategy is essential to progressively enable crew autonomy and mitigate mission success risks in the challenging environment of space. This transformative shift is collectively referred to as "Earth-Independent Medical Operations" (EIMO), signifying the gradual transfer of medical care and decision-making from terrestrial resources to space-based assets. This transition is aimed at bolstering astronaut health and performance while simultaneously reducing the overall risks associated with space missions. The constraints related to EIMO necessitate an integrated development of medical systems, featuring interoperability with mission planning, vehicle design, spacesuit design, and data architecture. This integration is vital in establishing a robust medical infrastructure that not only supports the well-being of astronauts but also ensures the success of the mission as a whole. The Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has developed a model-based Concept of Operations (ConOps) outlining an initial vision for EIMO. Within this ConOps, a comprehensive view is presented, encompassing stakeholder needs, system objectives, and system goals associated with EIMO. Additionally, it provides illustrative examples of the various activities (scenarios) for which the system will be employed during missions. The selection of these activities has been meticulous, aiming to encompass a wide spectrum of medical conditions, including those falling under different risk categories, such as low-likelihood-low-consequence, low-likelihood-high-consequence, and high-likelihood-low-consequence. The selection of these activities (scenarios) effectively encompasses the wide range of medical events situated within an assumed probability-consequence bell curve. In each scenario, at least one of the five main EIMO components identified is captured. Those EIMO components are: Pre-mission Planning, Acute and Emergent Management Decision Making, Prolonged Medical Management Decision Making, Supplies and Resource Management, and Task Load Management. The ConOps was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of systems engineers, scientists, and clinicians across NASA and aims to serve as an initial recommendation to gradually and safely enabling crew autonomy for Mars missions and beyond.

Earth Independent Medical Operations↗

Earth-Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) Concept of Operations (ConOps)

Compared to the current paradigm for crew health in low-Earth orbit and Lunar missions that rely on constant communication with Mission Control, there is an anticipated shift in medical operations for deep-space exploration missions. This shift stems from mission constraints imposed by the considerable distance from Earth, which include resource limitations due to a lack of resupply, mass, power, volume, and data limitations, challenges imposed by communication latency and the inability to evacuate in case of emergencies. To transition towards a more self-reliant medical approach, a comprehensive strategy is essential to progressively enable crew autonomy and mitigate mission success risks in the challenging environment of space. This transformative shift is collectively referred to as "Earth-Independent Medical Operations" (EIMO), signifying the gradual transfer of medical care and decision-making from terrestrial resources to space-based assets. This transition is aimed at bolstering astronaut health and performance while simultaneously reducing the overall risks associated with space missions. The constraints related to EIMO necessitate an integrated development of medical systems, featuring interoperability with mission planning, vehicle design, spacesuit design, and data architecture. This integration is vital in establishing a robust medical infrastructure that not only supports the well-being of astronauts but also ensures the success of the mission as a whole. The Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has developed a model-based Concept of Operations (ConOps) outlining an initial vision for EIMO. Within this ConOps, a comprehensive view is presented, encompassing stakeholder needs, system objectives, and system goals associated with EIMO. Additionally, it provides illustrative examples of the various activities (scenarios) for which the system will be employed during missions. The selection of these activities has been meticulous, aiming to encompass a wide spectrum of medical conditions, including those falling under different risk categories, such as low-likelihood-low-consequence, low-likelihood-high-consequence, and high-likelihood-low-consequence. The selection of these activities (scenarios) effectively encompasses the wide range of medical events situated within an assumed probability-consequence bell curve. In each scenario, at least one of the five main EIMO components identified is captured. Those EIMO components are: Pre-mission Planning, Acute and Emergent Management Decision Making, Prolonged Medical Management Decision Making, Supplies and Resource Management, and Task Load Management. The ConOps was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of systems engineers, scientists, and clinicians across NASA and aims to serve as an initial recommendation to gradually and safely enabling crew autonomy for Mars missions and beyond.

Earth Independent Medical Operations↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

CubeSub

This presentation introduces and discusses the development of the CubeSub submersible concept, an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) designed around the CubeSat satellite form factor. The presented work is part of the author's MSc thesis in Aerospace Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, and was performed during an internship at the Mission Design Division of the NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. Still in the early stages of its development, the CubeSub is to become a submersible test-bed for technology qualified for underwater and space environments. With the long-term goal of exploring the underwater environments in outer space, such as the alleged subsurface ocean of Jupiter's moon Europa, a number of technology and operational procedures must be developed and matured. To assist in this, the CubeSub platform is introduced as a tool to allow engineers and scientists to easily test qualified technology underwater. A CubeSat is a class of miniaturized satellite built to a standardized size. The base size is 1U (U for unit), corresponding to a 100 x 100 x 113.5 cu mm cube. A 1U CubeSat can in other words easily be held in one hand. Stacking units give larger satellite sizes such as the also commonly used 1.5U, 2U and 3U. The CubeSat standard is in itself already well established and hundreds of CubeSats have to date been launched into space. Compatible technology is readily available and the know-how exists in the space industry, all of which makes it a firm ground to stand on for the CubeSub. The rationale behind using the CubeSat form factor is to make use of this pre-existing foundation, making the CubeSub easy to develop, modular and readily available. It will thereby aid in the process of maturing the concept of a fully space qualified submersible headed for outer space. As a further clarification, the CubeSub is itself not meant for outer space, but to facilitate development of such a vessel. Along with its uses as a testbed, the CubeSub also holds the potential to become a useful tool for exploration and experimentation here on Earth. A highly standardized system utilizing well-known hardware can reduce the cost and required work load for researchers wishing to perform experiments and exploration. Users could design sensors and experiments to comply with the already well established CubeSat standard, which are then carried by the CubeSub to the region of interest. This in turn means that the end users can focus more on formulating the experiment itself and less about how to get it where they want it. The CubeSub is designed to be built up by modules, which can be assembled in different configurations to fulfill different needs. Each module will be powered individually and intermodular communication will be wireless, removing the need for wiring. The inside of the cylindrical hull will be flooded with ambient water to enhance the interaction between payloads and surrounding environment. The overall torpedo-like shape is similar to that of a conventional AUV, slender and smooth. This is to make for a low drag, reduce the risk of snagging on surrounding objects and make it possible to deploy through an ice sheet via a narrow borehole or navigate in tight areas. To keep costs low and further accelerate development, rapid prototyping is utilized wherever possible. Full-scale prototypes are being constructed through 3D-printing and using COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) components. 3D-printing is used both for the largest hull components and the relatively small and delicate propellers. Arduino boards are used for control and internal communication

AUV↗