Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LOGISTICS”

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 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Mission Highlights Resource Tape: Flight Days 8 - 10 - Part 3 of 4

An overview of the STS-111 Endeavour mission is given through footage of each flight day. Scenes from flight days 8 through 10 show activities such as extravehicular activity (EVA) preparation, EVA activity to replace the wrist roll joint on the International Space Station's (ISS) robotic arm, logistics transfer operation, space suit check-out and loading of the Leonardo Multi-Purpose Logistics Module onto the Endeavour's cargo bay. Individual shots of Africa, Italy, Hispaniola, Mexico and the Strait of Gilbraltar are shown. For mission footage from flight days 1 to 7 and 11-14, see also, 'STS-111 Mission Highlights Resource Tape, Part 1', 'STS-111 Mission Highlights Resource Tape, Part 2' and 'STS-111 Mission Highlights Resource Tape, Part 4'.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

CATS-based Air Traffic Controller Agents

This report describes intelligent agents that function as air traffic controllers. Each agent controls traffic in a single sector in real time; agents controlling traffic in adjoining sectors can coordinate to manage an arrival flow across a given meter fix. The purpose of this research is threefold. First, it seeks to study the design of agents for controlling complex systems. In particular, it investigates agent planning and reactive control functionality in a dynamic environment in which a variety perceptual and decision making skills play a central role. It examines how heuristic rules can be applied to model planning and decision making skills, rather than attempting to apply optimization methods. Thus, the research attempts to develop intelligent agents that provide an approximation of human air traffic controller behavior that, while not based on an explicit cognitive model, does produce task performance consistent with the way human air traffic controllers operate. Second, this research sought to extend previous research on using the Crew Activity Tracking System (CATS) as the basis for intelligent agents. The agents use a high-level model of air traffic controller activities to structure the control task. To execute an activity in the CATS model, according to the current task context, the agents reference a 'skill library' and 'control rules' that in turn execute the pattern recognition, planning, and decision-making required to perform the activity. Applying the skills enables the agents to modify their representation of the current control situation (i.e., the 'flick' or 'picture'). The updated representation supports the next activity in a cycle of action that, taken as a whole, simulates air traffic controller behavior. A third, practical motivation for this research is to use intelligent agents to support evaluation of new air traffic control (ATC) methods to support new Air Traffic Management (ATM) concepts. Current approaches that use large, human-in-the-loop simulations are unquestionably valuable for this purpose, but pose considerable logistical, fiscal, and experimental control problems. First, data analysis is extremely complicated, owing simply to the large number of participants and data sources in such simulations. In addition, experienced human air traffic controllers working adjacent sectors tend to flexibly adapt to the evolving control problem - potentially shifting to other strategies than those under investigation. In addition, their performance is tightly coupled to the control interface, which in the development phase may support some concepts and supporting strategies better than others. A simple shift in strategy by one controller can change the character of a particular traffic scenario dramatically, which makes experimental comparison of ATC performance under different traffic scenarios difficult. Training a given team of controllers on operations under a new ATM concept for a sufficient period of time could avert such difficulties, but instituting an adequate training program is expensive and logistically difficult.

Callantine, Todd J.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Payloads: SPACEHAB Research Double Module (RDM)

SPACEHAB Inc.'s Research Double Module (RDM) is making its first flight on STS-107. The RDM is a pressurized aluminum habitat that is carried in the space shuttle's cargo bay to expand working space aboard the shuttle. The RDM is connected to the shuttle middeck by a pressurized access tunnel. Boeing-Huntsville performed the RDM's systems integration for SPACEHAB and serves as the company's mission integration contractor. SPACEHAB Single Modules outfitted for research or logistics and Double Modules outfitted for logistics have flown on 15 space shuttle missions to date.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Using System Mass (SM), Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM) or Life Cycle Mass (LCM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS) Reporting

The Advanced Life Support (ALS) has used a single number, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), for both reporting progress and technology selection. ESM is the launch mass required to provide a space system. ESM indicates launch cost. ESM alone is inadequate for technology selection, which should include other metrics such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and also consider perfom.arxe 2nd risk. ESM has proven difficult to implement as a reporting metric, partly because it includes non-mass technology selection factors. Since it will not be used exclusively for technology selection, a new reporting metric can be made easier to compute and explain. Systems design trades-off performance, cost, and risk, but a risk weighted cost/benefit metric would be too complex to report. Since life support has fixed requirements, different systems usually have roughly equal performance. Risk is important since failure can harm the crew, but it is difficult to treat simply. Cost is not easy to estimate, but preliminary space system cost estimates are usually based on mass, which is better estimated than cost. Amass-based cost estimate, similar to ESM, would be a good single reporting metric. The paper defines and compares four mass-based cost estimates, Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM), Life Cycle Mass (LCM), and System Mass (SM). EM is traditional in life support and includes mass, volume, power, cooling and logistics. ESM is the specifically defined ALS metric, which adds crew time and possibly other cost factors to EM. LCM is a new metric, a mass-based estimate of LCC measured in mass units. SM includes only the factors of EM that are originally measured in mass, the hardware and logistics mass. All four mass-based metrics usually give similar comparisons. SM is by far the simplest to compute and easiest to explain.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS1998

Insight into mechanisms of reduced orthostatic performance after exposure to microgravity: comparison of ground-based and space flight data

Since the beginning of human spaceflight, the value of understanding mechanisms of physiological adaptation to microgravity became apparent to life scientists who were interested in maintining crew health and developing countermeasures agains adverse effects of the mission. However, several characteristics associated the the logistics of spaceflight presented significant limitations to the scientific study of human adaptation to microgravity. Because space missions are so infrequent and involve minimal numbers of crewmembers, meaninful statistical analysis of data are limited. Reproducibility of results from spaceflight experiments is difficult to assess since there are few repeated space missions involving the same crewmembers. Since the emphasis of space missions is placed on operations, experiments are compromised without adequate control over various factors (e.g., time, diet, physical activities, etc.) that can impact measured responses. With the mimimal opportunity to collect spaceflight data, there is a high risk of experiments that simultaneously interfere with other experiments by the increasing demand on the crewmembers to participate in mumerous experiments proposed by multiple investigators. The technology and ability to measure physiological functions necessary to test specific hypotheses can be severely limited by physical space and power constraints of the space enviroment. Finally, technical and logistical aspects of space missions such as launch delays, extended missions, and inflight operational emergencies can significantly compromise the timing and control of experiments. These limitations have stimulated scientists to develop ground-based analogs of microgravity in an effort to investigate the effects of spaceflight on physiological function in a controlled experimental setting. The purpose of this paper is to provide a selected comparison of data collected from ground-based experiments with those obtained from spaceflight in an effort to assess the adequacy of ground analogs of actual flight for the study of human physiological adaptation to microgravity. Specifically, results from ground and spaceflight will be used to provide insight into mechanisms underlying adaptations of blood pressure regulation and reduced orthostatic performance to the microgravity environment.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS2001

The International Space Station human life sciences experiment implementation process

The selection, definition, and development phases of a Life Sciences flight research experiment has been consistent throughout the past decade. The implementation process, however, has changed significantly within the past two years. This change is driven primarily by the shift from highly integrated, dedicated research missions on platforms with well defined processes to self contained experiments with stand alone operations on platforms which are being concurrently designed. For experiments manifested on the International Space Station (ISS) and/or on short duration missions, the more modular, streamlined, and independent the individual experiment is, the more likely it is to be successfully implemented before the ISS assembly is completed. During the assembly phase of the ISS, science operations are lower in priority than the construction of the station. After the station has been completed, it is expected that more resources will be available to perform research. The complexity of implementing investigations increases with the logistics needed to perform the experiment. Examples of logistics issues include- hardware unique to the experiment; large up and down mass and volume needs; access to crew and hardware during the ascent or descent phases; maintenance of hardware and supplies with a limited shelf life,- baseline data collection schedules with lengthy sessions or sessions close to the launch or landing; onboard stowage availability, particularly cold stowage; and extensive training where highly proficient skills must be maintained. As the ISS processes become better defined, experiment implementation will meet new challenges due to distributed management, on-orbit resource sharing, and adjustments to crew availability pre- and post-increment. c 2001. Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Research↗
NASA NTRS2005

Sabatier Methanation Reactor for Space Exploration

The Sabatier Methanation Reactor technology is of vital importance to the success of the human and robotic exploration program. In order to achieve an affordable program, the logistics supply to support the mission must be minimized to the fullest extent possible. One area of potential reduction with high return on investment is the closure of life support loops, particularly oxygen and water. The Sabatier system accomplishes this by utilizing hydrogen and carbon dioxide, waste products from the life support system, to produce water and methane. The recovered water is then recycled back into the life support system to provide oxygen; while the methane can be used for propulsion, or can be broken down further to recover the hydrogen. This technology is applicable not only to transit phases of exploration, but surface habitats as well as in-situ propellant production. The Sabatier Reactor system has been developed for ground based demonstration experiments extensively over the past 30 years. Over the past three years, NASA has funded development of the Sabatier Carbon Dioxide Reduction Assembly (CRA) for use on the ISS. Currently this system is at TRL 5 and it is expected that the system will be flown on the ISS as a flight experiment, The purpose of the flight experiment is to integrate the Sabatier CRA into a synchronized system with the oxygen generation system and the carbon dioxide concentrator. The flight experiment will verify the integration of the different systems working together plus it will verify the capability of the system to operate, and effectively separate its products in a micro-gravity environment. Subsequent to design validation, the flight experiment can remain onboard the ISS providing valuable water to offset logistics re-supply requirements. Some of the challenges facing the development of the Sabatier system include handling vibration induced particulates, microgravity phase separation and containment of hazardous gases. Plans for adequately addressing these issues will be presented. The Sabatier carbon dioxide reduction process will greatly benefit any of the extended duration human exploration missions because of the tremendous savings of consumables realized. Any of these mission scenarios, be they transit or surface based, must consider closing the life support loops in order to make the mission achievable, let alone affordable. Carbon dioxide reduction technology will be necessary for future outpost habitats, and the technology needs to be proven viable in a space application. The Sabatier methanation reaction is also a desirable method for producing propellant from the Mars atmosphere. The common system could be designed to accept carbon dioxide from an indoor air revitalization loop concentrator, or from an outdoor atmosphere compressor. Carbon dioxide reduction validation is but one step in the spiral development of the in-situ propellant production system desired for future planetary exploration.

Murdoch, Karen↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114 Flight Day 11 Highlights

Flight Day 11 begins with the STS-114 crew of Space Shuttle Discovery (Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot James Kelly, Mission Specialists Soichi Noguchi, Stephen Robinson, Andrew Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, and Charles Camarda) awaking to "Anchors Away," to signify the undocking of the Raffaello Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM) from the International Space Station (ISS). Canadarm 2, the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), retrieves the Raffaello Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM) from the nadir port of the Unity node of the ISS and returns it to Discovery's payload bay. The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) hands the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS) to its counterpart, the SSRMS, for rebearthing in the payload bay as well. The rebearthing of the OBSS is shown in detail, including centerline and split-screen views. Collins sends a message to her husband, and talks with Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX). Earth views include the Amalfi coast of Italy. The ISS control room bids farewell to the STS-114 crew and the Expedition 11 crew (Commander Sergei Krikalev and NASA ISS Science Officer and Flight Engineer John Phillips) of the ISS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Capability 9.4 Servicing

This paper presents viewgraphs on capability structure 9.4 servicing. The topics include: 1) Servicing Description; 2) Benefits of Servicing; 3) Drivers & Assumptions for Servicing; 4) Capability Breakdown Structure 9.4 Servicing; 5) Roadmap for Servicing; 6) 9.4 Servicing Critical Gaps; 7) Capability 9.4 Servicing; 8) Capability 9.4.1 Inspection; 9) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.1 Inspection; 10) Capability 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 11) State-of-the-Art/Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 12) Capability 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 13) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 14) Capability 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 15) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 16) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 17) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 18) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 19) Capability 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, Training; and 20) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, & Training;

Moe, Rud↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114 Discovery Return to Flight: International Space Station Processing Overview

Bruce Buckingham, NASA Public Affairs, introduces Scott Higgenbotham, STS-114 Payload Manager. Higgenbotham gives a power point presentation on the hardware that is going to fly in the Discovery Mission to the International Space Station. He presents a layout of the hardware which includes The Logistics Flight 1 (LF1) launch package configuration Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM), External Stowage Platform-2 (ESP-2) and the Lightweight Mission Peculiar Equipment Support Structure Carrier (LMC). He explains these payloads in detail. The LF-1 team is also shown in the International Space Station Processing Facility. This presentation ends with a brief question and answer period.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Crew Arrival

George Diller of NASA Public Affairs narrates the STS-114 Crew arrival at Kennedy Space Center aboard a Gulf Stream aircraft. They were greeted by Center Director Jim Kennedy. Commander Eileen Collins introduced each of her crew members and gave a brief description of their roles in the mission. Mission Specialist 3, Andrew Thomas will be the lead crew member on the inspection on flight day 2; he is the intravehicular (IV) crew member that will help and guide Mission Specialists Souichi Noguchi and Stephen Robinson during their spacewalks. Pilot James Kelly will be operating the shuttle systems in flying the Shuttle; he will be flying the space station robotic arm during the second extravehicular activity and he will be assisting Mission Specialist Wendy Lawrence during the other two extravehicular activities; he will be assisting on the rendezvous on flight day three, and landing of the shuttle. Commander Collins also mentioned Pilot Kelly's recent promotion to Colonel by the United States Air Force. Mission Specialist 1, Souichi Noguchi from JAXA (The Japanese Space Agency) will be flying on the flight deck for ascent; he will be doing three spacewalks on day 5, 7, and 9; He will be the photo/TV lead for the different types of cameras on board to document the flight and to send back the information to the ground for both technical and public affairs reasons. Mission Specialist 5, Charles Camada will be doing the inspection on flight day 2 with Mission Specialist Thomas and Pilot Kelly; he will be transferring the logistics off the shuttle and onto the space station and from the space station back to the shuttle; He will help set up eleven lap tops on board. Mission Specialist 4, Wendy Lawrence will lead the transfer of logistics to the space station; she is the space station arm operator during extravehicular activities 1 and 3; she will be carrying the 6,000 pounds of external storage platform from the shuttle payload bay over to the space station; she is also in charge of the shuttle storage. Mission Specialist 2, Stephen Robinson is the flight engineer of the shuttle; he will be doing spacewalks with Mission Specialist Noguchi; he will set up the 11 lap top computers on board. Each crew member gave a brief message to the press. Commander Eileen later gave her final message and the crew walked back to the Astronaut Corps.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Crew Interviews 1. Andy Thomas 2. Steve Robinson

STS-114 Mission Specialists, Andy Thomas and Steve Robinson, are seen in this pre-flight interview. Andy Thomas begins by talking about his interest in spaceflight as a young boy growing up in Australia. He expresses that the chances of an Australian boy studying to eventually become an astronaut was very remote. His Mechanical Engineering Degree in Australia and a Doctorate enabled him to acquire unique skills to come to the United States to work for Lockheed Martin. On the topic of return to flight, he reflects on experiences that he had working with the Michael Anderson and Kalpana Chawla of the ill-fated Space Shuttle Columbia. He also talks about the safety of the Space Shuttle Discovery and repairs to its Thermal Protection system. He explains in detail the Logistics Flight (LF) 1, spacewalks, Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM) and the External Stowage Platform (ESP)-2. Steve Robinson expresses that he had many interests as a child and becoming an astronaut was one of them. He was fascinated with things that fly and wanted to find out how they flew. He also designed hang gliders as a teenager. He expresses how his family feels about the risky business of spaceflight. He talks about how the space shuttle discovery crew will remember the Columbia crew by including seven stars on their patch so that they can bring them into orbit and then back home. Robinson also talks about his primary job, and the spacewalks that he and Soichi Noguchi will be performing.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Operations and Modeling Analysis

The Reliability and Maintainability Analysis Tool (RMAT) provides NASA the capability to estimate reliability and maintainability (R&M) parameters and operational support requirements for proposed space vehicles based upon relationships established from both aircraft and Shuttle R&M data. RMAT has matured both in its underlying database and in its level of sophistication in extrapolating this historical data to satisfy proposed mission requirements, maintenance concepts and policies, and type of vehicle (i.e. ranging from aircraft like to shuttle like). However, a companion analyses tool, the Logistics Cost Model (LCM) has not reached the same level of maturity as RMAT due, in large part, to nonexistent or outdated cost estimating relationships and underlying cost databases, and it's almost exclusive dependence on Shuttle operations and logistics cost input parameters. As a result, the full capability of the RMAT/LCM suite of analysis tools to take a conceptual vehicle and derive its operations and support requirements along with the resulting operating and support costs has not been realized.

Ebeling, Charles↗
NASA NTRS2006

RS-25 for the NASA Cargo Launch Vehicle: The Evolution of SSME for Space Exploration

A key element of the National Vision for Space Exploration is the development of a heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV). Missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond are only possible with the logistical capacity of putting large payloads in low-earth orbit. However, beyond simple logistics, there exists the need for this capability to be as cost effective as possible to ensure mission sustainability. An element of the CaLV project is, therefore, the development of the RS-25, which represents the evolution of the proven Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) into a high-performance, cost-effective expendable rocket engine. The development of the RS-25 will be built upon the foundation of over one million seconds of accumulated hot-fire time on the SSME. Yet in order to transform the reusable SSME into the more cost-effective, expendable RS-25 changes will have to be made. Thus the project will inevitably strive to maintain a balance between demonstrated heritage products and processes and the utilization of newer technology developments. Towards that end, the Core Stage Engine Office has been established at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center to initiate the design and development of the RS-25 engine. This paper is being written very early in the formulation phase of the RS-25 project. Therefore the focus of this paper will be to present the scope, challenges, and opportunities for the RS-25 project. Early schedules and development decisions and plans will be explained. For not only must the RS-25 project achieve cost effectiveness through the development of new, evolved components such as a channel-wall nozzle, a new HIP-bonded main combustion chamber, and several others, it must simultaneously develop the means whereby this engine can be manufactured on a scale never envisioned for the SSME. Thus, while the overall project will span the next eight to ten years, there is little doubt that even this schedule is aggressive with a great deal of work to accomplish.

Kynard, Michael H.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS) Local and Remote Test Sites

Desert RATS (Research and Technology Studies) is a combined group of inter-NASA center scientists and engineers, collaborating with representatives of industry and academia, for the purpose of conducting remote field exercises. These exercises provide the capability to validate experimental hardware and software, to evaluate and develop mission operational techniques, and to identify and establish technical requirements applicable for future planetary exploration. D-RATS completed its ninth year of field testing in September 2006. Dry run test activities prior to testing at designated remote field site locations are initially conducted at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Remote Field Demonstration Test Site. This is a multi-acre external test site located at JSC and has detailed representative terrain features simulating both Lunar and Mars surface characteristics. The majority of the remote field tests have been subsequently conducted in various high desert areas adjacent to Flagstaff, Arizona. Both the local JSC and remote field test sites have terrain conditions that are representative of both the Moon and Mars, such as strewn rock and volcanic ash fields, meteorite crater ejecta blankets, rolling plains, hills, gullies, slopes, and outcrops. Flagstaff is the preferred remote test site location for many reasons. First, there are nine potential test sites with representative terrain features within a 75-mile radius. Second, Flagstaff is the location of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS)/Astrogeology Branch, which historically supported Apollo astronaut geologic training and currently supports and provides host accommodations to the D-RATS team. Finally, in considering the importance of logistics in regard to providing the necessary level of support capabilities, the Flagstaff area provides substantial logistics support and lodging accommodations to take care of team members during long hours of field operations.

Janoiko, Barbara↗
NASA NTRS2007

Structural Design and Analysis of Un-pressurized Cargo Delivery Vehicle

As part of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, NASA has defined a family of vehicles to support lunar exploration and International Space Station (ISS) re-supply missions after the Shuttle s retirement. The Un-pressurized Cargo Delivery Vehicle (UCDV) has been envisioned to be an expendable logistics delivery vehicle that would be used to deliver external cargo to the ISS. It would be launched on the Crew Launch Vehicle and would replace the Crew Exploration Vehicle. The estimated cargo would be the weight of external logistics to the ISS. Determining the minimum weight design of the UCDV during conceptual design is the major issue addressed in this paper. This task was accomplished using a procedure for rapid weight estimation that was based on Finite Element Analysis and sizing of the vehicle by the use of commercially available codes. Three design concepts were analyzed and their respective weights were compared. The analytical structural weight was increased by a factor to account for structural elements that were not modeled. Significant reduction in weight of a composite design over metallic was achieved for similar panel concepts.

Martinovic, Zoran N.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Overview for Attached Payload Accommodations and Environments

External payload accommodations are provided at attach sites on the U.S provided ELC, U.S. Truss, the Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM EF) and the Columbus EPF (External Payload Facilities). The Integrated Truss Segment (ITS) provides the backbone structure for the ISS. It attaches the solar and thermal control arrays to the rest of the complex, and houses cable distribution trays Extravehicular Activity (EVA) support equipment such as handholds and lighting; and providing for Extravehicular Robotic (EVR) accommodations using the Mobile Servicing System (MSS). It also provides logistics and maintenance, and payload attachment sites. The attachment sites accommodate logistics and maintenance and payloads carriers, zenith and nadir. The JEM-EF, a back porch-like attachment to the JEM Pressurized Module, accommodates up to eight payloads, which can be serviced by the crew via the JEM PM's airlock and dedicated robotic arm. The Columbus-EPF is another porch-like platform that can accommodate two zenith and two nadir looking payloads.

Schaffer, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2008

Structural Definition and Mass Estimation of Lunar Surface Habitats for the Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 (LAT-2) Study

The Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 study defined and assessed architecture options for a Lunar Outpost at the Moon's South Pole. The Habitation Focus Element Team was responsible for developing concepts for all of the Habitats and pressurized logistics modules particular to each of the architectures, and defined the shapes, volumes and internal layouts considering human factors, surface operations and safety requirements, as well as Lander mass and volume constraints. The Structures Subsystem Team developed structural concepts, sizing estimates and mass estimates for the primary Habitat structure. In these studies, the primary structure was decomposed into a more detailed list of components to be sized to gain greater insight into concept mass contributors. Structural mass estimates were developed that captured the effect of major design parameters such as internal pressure load. Analytical and empirical equations were developed for each structural component identified. Over 20 different hard-shell, hybrid expandable and inflatable soft-shell Habitat and pressurized logistics module concepts were sized and compared to assess structural performance and efficiency during the study. Habitats were developed in three categories; Mini Habs that are removed from the Lander and placed on the Lunar surface, Monolithic habitats that remain on the Lander, and Habitats that are part of the Mobile Lander system. Each category of Habitat resulted in structural concepts with advantages and disadvantages. The same modular shell components could be used for the Mini Hab concept, maximizing commonality and minimizing development costs. Larger Habitats had higher volumetric mass efficiency and floor area than smaller Habitats (whose mass was dominated by fixed items such as domes and frames). Hybrid and pure expandable Habitat structures were very mass-efficient, but the structures technology is less mature, and the ability to efficiently package and deploy internal subsystems remains an open issue.

Dorsey, John T.↗