SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Return Vehicle”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 451 records · Page 25

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2017

One Giant Leap to Protect All Mankind: An Overview of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Motivation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy charged the nation "to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth." Eight years later, the Apollo 11 astronauts splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after this first 8-day journey to the moon. As humans had never ventured to another extraterrestrial body, the U.S. government noted the great uncertainty associated with the unknown exposures related to this historic mission. Overview. With this uncertainty in mind, a newly formed Interagency Committee on Back Contamination (ICBC) was established to review the potential for lunar contaminants and establish the prevention of their escape into the biosphere during crew and sample recovery operations from the floating command module to the mobile quarantine facility on the recovery ship and return to the Johnson Space Center. Significance. As a result of the ICBC recommendations, in 1966 NASA planned and built the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The LRL served a great role in service of human space exploration to quarantine Apollo crewmembers, their space vehicles, and the lunar samples collected. Almost an afterthought in the space race to the Moon, the 83,000-square-foot LRL was designed and completed in 1967 for $7.8 million. The core purpose of the LRL was "to protect the public's health, agriculture, and other living resources; to provide lunar sample distribution to approved scientific investigators; and to preserve the scientific integrity of the lunar samples at all times." Its layout was comprised of three major zones: a quarantined Crew Area, a separate but also quarantined Sample Operations Area, and a Support and Administration Area outside the controlled biological barrier. This facility required trained personnel to live and perform within it for several weeks post-flight, to include astronaut crewmembers, flight surgeons, scientists, and vehicle recovery engineers. The LRL holds memories of these historic events but has since been repurposed for NASA's medical and environmental sciences activities, in what is now known as Building 37. As we approach its 50th anniversary, the LRL story will end in demolition as NASA advances its facilities for the next steps in human exploration of space. Learning Objectives: 1. To capture the historical relevance of the NASA Lunar Receiving Laboratory 2. To understand the requirements of receiving crew and samples from the moon for the first time 3. To describe the facility capabilities in protection of public health.

Hayes, Judith↗

NASA NTRS2010

Operational Lessons Learned from NASA Analog Missions

National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) efforts in human space flight are currently focused on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs, with efforts beginning on the future exploration opportunities. Both the Space Shuttle and ISS programs are important to the development of a capability for human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The ISS provides extensive research capabilities to determine how the human body reacts to long duration stays in space. Also, the ISS and Shuttle can serve as a limited testbed for equipment or entire systems that may be used on missions to the Moon, Mars, or to a near-Earth asteroid. It has been nearly 35 years since the Apollo astronauts visited the Moon. Future space explorers will have to re-learn how to work and live on planetary surfaces, and how to do that for extended periods of time. Exploration crews will perform a wide assortment of scientific tasks, including material sampling and emplacement of automated instruments. Surface mission operations include the activities of the crew living and working, mission support from the Earth, and the operation of robotic and other remotely commanded equipment on the surface and in planetary orbit. Other surface activities will include the following: exploring areas surrounding a habitat; using rovers to collect rock and soil samples; setting up experiments on the surface to monitor the radiation environment and any seismic or thermal activity; and conducting scientific analyses and experiments inside a habitat laboratory. Of course, the astronauts will also have to spend some of their surface time "doing chores" and maintaining their habitat and other systems. In preparation for future planetary exploration, NASA must design the answers to many operational questions. What will the astronauts do on the surface? How will they accomplish this? What tools will they require for their tasks? How will robots and astronauts work together? What vehicle and system capabilities are required to support the activities? How will the crew and the Earth-based mission control team interact? During the initial phases of manned planetary exploration, one challenge in particular is virtually the same as during the Apollo program: How can scientific return be maximized during a relatively short surface mission? Today, NASA is investigating solutions to these challenges by conducting analog missions. These Earth-based missions possess characteristics that are analogous to missions on the Moon or Mars. These missions are excellent for testing operational concepts, and the design, configuration, and functionality of spacesuits, robots, rovers, and habitats. Analog mission crews test specific techniques and procedures for surface field geology, biological sample collection, and planetary protection. The process of actually working an analog mission reveals a myriad of small details, which either contribute to or impede efficient operations, many of which would never have been thought about otherwise. It also helps to define the suite of tools, containers, and other small equipment that surface explorers will use. This paper focuses on how analog missions have addressed selected operational considerations for future planetary missions.

Arnold, Larissa S.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Orion Aerodynamics for Hypersonic Free Molecular to Continuum Conditions

Numerical simulations are performed for the Orion Crew Module, previously known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Command Module, to characterize its aerodynamics during the high altitude portion of its reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, that is, from free molecular to continuum hypersonic conditions. The focus is on flow conditions similar to those that the Orion Crew Module would experience during a return from the International Space Station. The bulk of the calculations are performed with two direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) codes, and these data are anchored with results from both free molecular and Navier-Stokes calculations. Results for aerodynamic forces and moments are presented that demonstrate their sensitivity to rarefaction, that is, for free molecular to continuum conditions (Knudsen numbers of 111 to 0.0003). Also included are aerodynamic data as a function of angle of attack for different levels of rarefaction and results that demonstrate the aerodynamic sensitivity of the Orion CM to a range of reentry velocities (7.6 to 15 km/s).

Moss, James N.↗

NASA NTRS2009

United States Human Access to Space, Exploration of the Moon and Preparation for Mars Exploration

In the past, men like Leonardo da Vinci and Jules Verne imagined the future and envisioned fantastic inventions such as winged flying machines, submarines, and parachutes, and posited human adventures like transoceanic flight and journeys to the Moon. Today, many of their ideas are reality and form the basis for our modern world. While individual visionaries like da Vinci and Verne are remembered for the accuracy of their predictions, today entire nations are involved in the process of envisioning and defining the future development of mankind, both on and beyond the Earth itself. Recently, Russian, European, and Chinese teams have all announced plans for developing their own next generation human space vehicles. The Chinese have announced their intention to conduct human lunar exploration, and have flown three crewed space missions since 2003, including a flight with three crew members to test their extravehicular (spacewalking) capabilities in September 2008. Very soon, the prestige, economic development, scientific discovery, and strategic security advantage historically associated with leadership in space exploration and exploitation may no longer be the undisputed province of the United States. Much like the sponsors of the seafaring explorers of da Vinci's age, we are motivated by the opportunity to obtain new knowledge and new resources for the growth and development of our own civilization. NASA's new Constellation Program, established in 2005, is tasked with maintaining the United States leadership in space, exploring the Moon, creating a sustained human lunar presence, and eventually extending human operations to Mars and beyond. Through 2008, the Constellation Program developed a full set of detailed program requirements and is now completing the preliminary design phase for the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, and the associated infrastructure necessary for humans to explore the Moon. Component testing is well underway, and integrated flight testing will begin in 2009. This white paper summarizes 3 years of Constellation Program progress and accomplishments, and it describes the foundation set for human lunar return in 2020.

Rhatigan, Jennifer L.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Operational Considerations and Comparisons of the Saturn, Space Shuttle and Ares Launch Vehicles

The United States (U.S.) space exploration policy has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to retire the Space Shuttle and to replace it with a new generation of space transportation systems for crew and cargo travel to the International Space Station, the Moon, Mars, and beyond. As part of the Constellation Program, engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama are working to design and build the Ares I, the first of two large launch vehicles to return humans to the Moon. A deliberate effort is being made to ensure a high level of operability in order to significantly increase safety and availability as well as reduce recurring costs of this new launch vehicle. It is the Ares Project's goal to instill operability as part of the requirements development, design and operations of the vehicle. This paper will identify important factors in launch vehicle design that affect the operability and availability of the system. Similarities and differences in operational constraints will also be compared between the Saturn V, Space Shuttle and current Ares I design. Finally, potential improvements in operations and operability for large launch vehicles will be addressed. From the examples presented, the paper will discuss potential improvements for operability for future launch vehicles.

Cruzen, Craig↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Utility of a Small Pressurized Rover with Suit Ports for Lunar Exploration: A Geologist's Perspective

Rover trade study: As summarized recently, mission simulations at Black Point Lava Flow (Arizona) that included realistic extravehicular activity (EVA) tasking, accurate traverse timelines, and an in-loop science CAPCOM (or SciCOM) showed that a small pressurized rover (SPR) was a better mobility asset than an unpressurized rover (UPR). Traverses within the SPR were easier on crew than spending an entire day in a spacesuit, enhancing crew productivity at each station. The SPR, named Lunar Electric Rover (LER), and sometimes called the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), could also provide shelter during a suit malfunction, radiation event, or medical emergency that might occur on the Moon. Intravehicular activity (IVA) capabilities: From within the vehicle, crew could describe and photo-document distant features during drives between stations, as well as in the near-field, directly in front of the LER, providing an ability to begin EVA planning on approach to each outcrop prior to egress. The vehicle can rotate 360º without any lateral movement, providing views in all directions. It has high-visibility windows, a ForeCam, AftCam, port and starboard cameras, docking cameras, and a GigaPan camera. EVA capabilities: To reduce timeline, mass, and volumetric overhead, rapid egress and ingress were envisioned, replacing an airlock with lower cabin pressure than on the International Space Station and suit ports on the aft cabin wall [2]. When needed for closer inspection and sample collecting, crew could egress in about 10 minutes through suit ports. Crew use SuitCams for additional photo-documentation, transmit mobile observations verbally, and collect surface materials. Typical simulations involved 3 to 4 EVA stations/day and 2 to 3 hr/day of boots on the ground. This allowed crew to explore a far larger territory, with more complex geological and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) features, than would a single, longer-duration EVA at one location, while also minimizing crew time in a spacesuit. Additionally, the vehicle could be driven with crew locked into the suit ports. This approach could involve a driver in the cockpit with a suited crewmember in a suit port, or the vehicle could be driven from the aft deck with both crewmembers in their suit ports. This approach was used when distances between stops were short enough that vehicle ingress and egress were less efficient than remaining in the suits and driving. Utility of suit ports: The advantages of suit ports were clearly demonstrated in those field-based trade studies. To illustrate those advantages further, consider the consequences of a SPR without suit ports at the Apollo 17 landing site. At that site, the crew's second EVA was an approximately 18 km loop conducted in a UPR, called the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), in 7 hr 36 min 56 s. The traverse was composed of 5 formal stations, plus 8 additional LRV stations where crew made brief scientific stops. In a scenario involving a SPR without suit ports, crew would go EVA through an airlock and probably be limited to a single EVA per day. In that case, crew could drive the SPR ~9 km from the landing site to station 2, go EVA, and complete station 2 tasks. However, to conduct station 3 tasks, the crew would then need to walk approximately 3 km to station 3, while ground control in Houston tele-robotically drives the LER to station 3. A walk of approximately 3 km is possible, as that is what the Apollo 14 crew did before LRVs were deployed, but it is a lengthy and potentially grueling EVA. Assuming crew completes station 3 tasks, they would likely need to re-enter the SPR, ending the day's EVA, and return to the landing site. They would not be able to walk the additional distances to stations 4 and 5 (the latter being about 6 km from station 3). Thus, crew in an SPR without suit ports would require two days to accomplish the same tasks Apollo 17 crew completed in a single day. If a future crew is involved in long duration traverses on the lunar surface, the deployment of a vehicle with suit ports would probably be a better solution.

Kring, David A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Culture-Independent Microbial Air Profiling using a Spaceflight-Compatible Nanopore Sequencing Method

Microbial monitoring of spacecraft air is critical toward assessing the efficacy of microbial controls within the environmental control and life support systems to protect the crew and vehicle environment. Currently, onboard the International Space Station (ISS), the air is monitored every quarter using an impaction air sampler. With this method, microbial cells and spores are pulled onto plates containing a growth medium. Following onboard incubation, the crew reports approximate microbial levels to the ground, but sample return is required for identification. Upon return of the plates, the isolates present are identified for crew health risk assessments. As NASA moves beyond low-Earth orbit, sample return will be impractical, and a near real-time monitoring capability is essential. Significant strides have been made in recent years to utilize a molecular-based method for microbial profiling of ISS surfaces. The developed method is independent of microbial culture, thus removing the bias toward detecting only culturable organisms, eliminating the need for sample return, and reducing the risk to crew health from exposure to high microbial levels. The work described here details the evaluation of three different air sampling platforms whose product is amenable to downstream molecular processing. The three samplers were compared in terms of mass and power requirements, ease of use, and the resulting data. For the two highest-ranking samplers, a basic concept of operations was developed to transfer the sample into the already established preparation and sequencing process. Using these concepts of operations, an in-depth comparison of the molecular data generated was compared to the historical culture-based method. Data from both methods detailed similar microbial profiles, while the molecular method detailed microbial identifications that were lacking from the culture data. The developed method will enable the generation of near real-time microbial profiles of the spacecraft atmosphere.

Brandon Dunbar↗

NASA NTRS2023

Risk Trade-Space Analysis for Safe Human Expeditions to Mars

We assessed the integrated safety, health, and performance risk to crews on long-duration missions, specifically to Mars. Using a systems approach rather than one focused on individual countermeasures, we examined the trade space around several such risks to identify high-potential risk mitigation strategies and characterize aspects of Mars mission architectures that could lower aggregated risk. Current Mars Design Reference missions would require durations well over two years and would increase crew exposure to radiation and microgravity well beyond ISS levels, likely resulting in significantly reduced performance beyond our current capability to mitigate that could jeopardize mission success. A “fast Mars transit” round-trip mission concept was studied using an innovative flight dynamics approach to quantify the minimum total mission energy required for a Mars transit with total mission duration less than 400 days. This approach holds promise for sending humans to Mars and returning them safely with acceptable, potentially mitigatable, exposure to microgravity and radiation using current or near-term technologies. The fast transit concept would also result in fewer time-driven vehicle failures and enable sustainable deployment of humans and infrastructure to Mars on a regular cadence, allowing steady exploration and colonization of Mars. Finally, we conclude that reliance on the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mission operations paradigm – i.e., one of near-complete real-time dependence on experts at Mission Control to manage the combined state of the mission, vehicle, and crew – is high risk given the communication delays and limited resupply of any Mars mission, and this risk is not eliminated by the shorter missions durations of fast transit scenarios. Based on historical trends, it is highly likely that the crew will face a high-consequence problem of uncertain origin during Mars transit when ground support will be greatly reduced. While it may be possible to reduce anomaly rates through improved reliability analysis and testing, and to reduce anomaly impacts through added robustness, such mitigations address only known failure modes and known uncertainties. Therefore, a radical shift in the Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) that defines the operational paradigm, systems design, and human-systems interactions is required to improve the risk posture to an acceptable level regardless of mission duration.

Mars↗

DOE OSTI2020

NASA’s first ground-based Galactic Cosmic Ray Simulator: Enabling a new era in space radiobiology research

With exciting new NASA plans for a sustainable return to the moon, astronauts will once again leave Earth’s protective magnetosphere only to endure higher levels of radiation from galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and the possibility of a large solar particle event (SPE). Gateway, lunar landers, and surface habitats will be designed to protect crew against SPEs with vehicle optimization, storm shelter concepts, and/or active dosimetry; however, the ever penetrating GCR will continue to pose the most significant health risks especially as lunar missions increase in duration and as NASA sets its aspirations on Mars. The primary risks of concern include carcinogenesis, central nervous system (CNS) effects resulting in potential in-mission cognitive or behavioral impairment and/or late neurological disorders, degenerative tissue effects including circulatory and heart disease, as well as potential immune system decrements impacting multiple aspects of crew health. Characterization and mitigation of these risks requires a significant reduction in the large biological uncertainties of chronic (low-dose rate) heavy-ion exposures and the validation of countermeasures in a relevant space environment. Historically, most research on understanding space radiation-induced health risks has been performed using acute exposures of monoenergetic single-ion beams. However, the space radiation environment consists of a wide variety of ion species over a broad energy range. Using the fast beam switching and controls systems technology recently developed at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, a new era in radiobiological research is possible. NASA has developed the “GCR Simulator” to generate a spectrum of ion beams that approximates the primary and secondary GCR field experienced at human organ locations within a deep-space vehicle. The majority of the dose is delivered from protons (approximately 65%–75%) and helium ions (approximately 10%–20%) with heavier ions (Z ≥ 3) contributing the remainder. The GCR simulator exposes state-of-the art cellular and animal model systems to 33 sequential beams including 4 proton energies plus degrader, 4 helium energies plus degrader, and the 5 heavy ions of C, O, Si, Ti, and Fe. A polyethylene degrader system is used with the 100 MeV/n H and He beams to provide a nearly continuous distribution of low-energy particles. A 500 mGy exposure, delivering doses from each of the 33 beams, requires approximately 75 minutes. To more closely simulate the low-dose rates found in space, sequential field exposures can be divided into daily fractions over 2 to 6 weeks, with individual beam fractions as low as 0.1 to 0.2 mGy. In the large beam configuration (60 × 60 cm 2 ), 54 special housing cages can accommodate 2 to 3 mice each for an approximately 75 min duration or 15 individually housed rats. On June 15, 2018, the NSRL made a significant achievement by completing the first operational run using the new GCR simulator. This paper discusses NASA’s innovative technology solution for a ground-based GCR simulator at the NSRL to accelerate our understanding and mitigation of health risks faced by astronauts. Ultimately, the GCR simulator will require validation across multiple radiogenic risks, endpoints, doses, and dose rates.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Shuttle Processing Overview Briefing

This video of a briefing to representatives from the national media took the form of a slide show presentation by Jon Cowart, Manager of the Resident Office at Johnson Space Center. The presentation was an overview of ground maintainance facilities and procedures at Kennedy Space Center used to support Space Shuttle operations. The photographs in the slide show: Shuttle ground transport, maintenance, computers, and payloads, the Vehicle Assembly Building, ground operations, launch operations, crew boarding, liftoff, Pad A and Pad B, Solid Rocket Motor retrieval, crew procedures on-orbit, and landing. After the presentation is a brief question and answer session, in which reporters ask Cowart about Shuttle readiness, changes in Shuttle operations made for the Return to Flight, and how weather affects Shuttle operations.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2006

Blunt Body Aerodynamics for Hypersonic Low Density Flows

Numerical simulations are performed for the Apollo capsule from the hypersonic rarefied to the continuum regimes. The focus is on flow conditions similar to those experienced by the Apollo 6 Command Module during the high altitude portion of its reentry. The present focus is to highlight some of the current activities that serve as a precursor for computational tool assessments that will be used to support the development of aerodynamic data bases for future capsule flight environments, particularly those for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). Results for aerodynamic forces and moments are presented that demonstrate their sensitivity to rarefaction; that is, free molecular to continuum conditions. Also, aerodynamic data are presented that shows their sensitivity to a range of reentry velocities, encompassing conditions that include reentry from low Earth orbit, lunar return, and Mars return velocities (7.7 to 15 km/s). The rarefied results obtained with direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) codes are anchored in the continuum regime with data from Navier-Stokes simulations.

Moss, James N.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Space Radiation Laboratory Galactic Cosmic Ray Simulator

With exciting new Agency plans for a sustainable return to the moon, astronauts will once again leave earth’s protective magnetosphere only to endure higher levels of radiation from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and the possibility of a large solar particle event (SPE). Gateway, lunar landers, and surface habitats will be designed to protect crew against SPEs with vehicle optimization, storm shelter concepts, and/or active dosimetry; however, the ever-penetrating GCR will continue to pose the most significant health risks especially as lunar missions increase in duration and as NASA sets its aspirations on Mars. The primary risks of concern include carcinogenesis, central nervous system effects resulting in potential in-mission cognitive or behavioral impairment and/or late neurological disorders, degenerative tissue effects including cataracts, circulatory and heart disease, as well as, potential immune system decrements impacting multiple aspects of crew health. Characterization and mitigation of these risks requires a significant reduction in the large biological uncertainties of chronic (low-dose rate) heavy ion exposures and the validation of countermeasures in a relevant space environment. NASA has developed the “GCR Simulator” at Brookhaven National Laboratory to generate a spectrum of ion beams that approximates the primary and secondary GCR field experienced at human organ locations within a deep-space vehicle. The majority of the dose is delivered from protons (~65-75%) and helium ions (~10-20%) with heavier ions (Z>3) contributing the remainder. The “GCR Simulator” exposes state-of-the art cellular and animal model systems to 33 sequential beams including 4 proton energies plus degrader, 4 helium energies plus degrader, and the five heavy ions of C, O, Si, Ti, and Fe. A polyethylene degrader is used with the 100 MeV/n H and He beams to provide a nearly continuous distribution of low energy particles. A 500 mGy exposure, delivering doses from each of the 33 beams, requires 75-90 minutes. To more closely simulate the low dose rates found in space, sequential field exposures can be divided into daily fractions over 2-6 weeks, with individual beam fractions as low as 0.1-0.2 mGy. In the large beam configuration (60 x 60 cm2), 54 special housing cages can accommodate 2-3 mice each for a 70-75 min duration or ~15 individually housed rats. Emerging research results from our 2018 runs utilizing mixed heavy ion fields and protracted space exposures are forthcoming and will deepen our understanding of the numerous health risks faced by astronauts. This talk discusses NASA’s innovative technology solution for a ground-based GCR simulator at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory to enable future exploration missions.

galactic cosmic ray simulator↗

NASA NTRS2019

NASA’s Galactic Cosmic Ray Simulator at Brookhaven National Laboratory: Enabling Human Exploration Missions to the Moon and Mars

With exciting new Agency plans for a sustainable return to the moon, astronauts will once again leave earth’s protective magnetosphere only to endure higher levels of radiation from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and the possibility of a large solar particle event (SPE). Gateway, lunar landers, and surface habitats will be designed to protect crew against SPE’s with vehicle optimization, storm shelter concepts, and/or active dosimetry; however, the ever-penetrating GCR will continue to pose the most significant health risks especially as lunar missions increase in duration and as NASA sets its aspirations on Mars. The primary risks of concern include epithelial carcinogenesis and leukemia, central nervous system effects resulting in potential in-mission cognitive or behavioral impairment and/or late neurological disorders, degenerative tissue effects including cataracts, circulatory and heart disease, as well as, potential immune system decrements impacting multiple aspects of crew health. Characterization and mitigation of these risks requires a significant reduction in the large biological uncertainties of chronic (low-dose rate) heavy ion exposures and the validation of countermeasures in a relevant space environment. NASA has developed the “GCR Simulator” at Brookhaven National Laboratory to generate a spectrum of ion beams that approximates the primary and secondary GCR field experienced at human organ locations within a deep-space vehicle. The majority of the dose is delivered from protons (~65-75%) and alpha particles (~10-20%) with heavier ions (Z≤3) contributing the remainder. The “GCR Simulator” exposes state-of-the art cellular and animal model systems to 33 sequential beams including 4 proton energies plus degrader, 4 helium energies plus degrader, and the five heavy ions of C, O, Si, Ti, and Fe. A polyethylene degrader is used with the 100 MeV/n H and He beams to provide a nearly continuous distribution of low energy particles. A 500 mGy exposure, delivering doses from each of the 33 beams, requires 75-90 minutes. To more closely simulate the low dose rates found in space, sequential field exposures can be divided into daily fractions over 2-4 weeks, with individual fractions as low as 0.1-0.2 mGy. In the large beam configuration (60 x 60 cm(exp 2)), 54 special housing cages can accommodate 2-3 mice each for a 70-75 min duration or ~15 individually housed rats. Emerging research results from our 2018 runs utilizing mixed heavy ion fields and protracted space exposures are forthcoming and deepen our understanding of the numerous health risks faced by our astronauts. This paper discusses NASA’s innovative technology solution for a ground-based GCR simulator at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory to enable future exploration missions.

Lisa C Simonsen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety & Mission Assurance (SMA) Activities in Support of Artemis I and Plans for Artemis II

The Artemis I mission in 2022 accomplished humanity’s first venture beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) with a human-rated spacecraft in over fifty years. Artemis comprises several key Program elements – Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Orion Crew Module, Service Module, Launch Abort System; the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Exploration Ground System (EGS). Much of our human spaceflight experience with crewed lunar missions is captured in historical program documents, but first-hand knowledge is limited to a few spaceflight veterans. Missions to LEO have offered the opportunity of direct, near-instantaneous communications and assistance, and the ability to return to Earth within a matter of hours in case of emergency. Outward-bound missions do not have these features and will require a more autonomous and reliable spacecraft. The assessment of compliance with applicable safety requirements and adequacy of hazard controls and verifications is the responsibility of the MPCV Safety and Engineering Review Panel (MSERP), along with a Joint [NASA/ESA] Safety and Engineering Review Panel (JSERP) for the review of the European Service Module (ESM). The MSERP has two features that are relatively unique amongst NASA safety panels. First, NASA Engineering was added as a Panel co-chair, which enhanced the Engineering organization’s engagement and level of understanding of hazard analysis methodology and results. The MSERP has representation from each office, including Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and Health and Medical Technical Authority, supporting the Orion Program in addition to the Engineering and Safety Technical Authority co-chairs. Second, the JSERP has a second set of co-chairs from ESA Engineering and ESA Product Assurance and Safety organizations, which recognizes the international arrangement as one of partnership. This paper will focus on SMA processes, activities, and plans for the Orion element and explore unique challenges associated with Artemis II as we approach the flight of the first crewed Orion vehicle.

Paul J. Collier↗

NASA NTRS2016

An Overview of NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) Concept

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) as a capability demonstration for future human exploration, including use of high-power solar electric propulsion, which allows for the efficient movement of large masses through deep space. The ARM will also demonstrate the capability to conduct proximity operations with natural space objects and crewed operations beyond the security of quick Earth return. The Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM), currently in formulation, will visit a large near-Earth asteroid (NEA), collect a multi-ton boulder from its surface, conduct a demonstration of a slow push planetary defense technique, and redirect the multi-ton boulder into a stable orbit around the Moon. Once returned to cislunar space in the mid-2020s, astronauts aboard an Orion spacecraft will dock with the robotic vehicle to explore the boulder and return samples to Earth. The ARM is part of NASA's plan to advance technologies, capabilities, and spaceflight experience needed for a human mission to the Martian system in the 2030s. The ARM and subsequent availability of the asteroidal material in cis-lunar space, provide significant opportunities to advance our knowledge of small bodies in the synergistic areas of science, planetary defense, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). NASA established the Formulation Assessment and Support Team (FAST), comprised of scientists, engineers, and technologists, which supported ARRM mission requirements formulation, answered specific questions concerning potential target asteroid physical properties, and produced a publically available report. The ARM Investigation Team is being organized to support ARM implementation and execution. NASA is also open to collaboration with its international partners and welcomes further discussions. An overview of the ARM robotic and crewed segments, including mission requirements, NEA targets, and mission operations, and a discussion of potential opportunities for participation with the ARM will be provided.

Abell, P. A.↗

NASA NTRS2007

The Columbia Accident Investigation and The NASA Glenn Ballistic Impact Laboratory Contributions Supporting NASA's Return to Flight

On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during reentry, resulting in loss of the vehicle and its seven crewmembers. For the next several months, an extensive investigation of the accident ensued involving a nationwide team of experts from NASA, industry, and academia, spanning dozens of technical disciplines. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), a group of experts assembled to conduct an investigation independent of NASA, concluded in August, 2003 that the most likely cause of the loss of Columbia and its crew was a breach in the left wing leading edge Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) thermal protection system initiated by the impact of thermal insulating foam that had separated from the orbiters external fuel tank 81 seconds into the mission's launch. During reentry, this breach allowed superheated air to penetrate behind the leading edge and erode the aluminum structure of left wing, which ultimately led to the breakup of the orbiter. The findings of the CAIB were supported by ballistic impact tests, which simulated the physics of External Tank Foam impact on the RCC wing leading edge material. These tests ranged from fundamental material characterization tests to full-scale Orbiter Wing Leading Edge tests. Following the accident investigation, NASA spent the next 18 months focused on returning the shuttle safely to flight. In order to fully evaluate all potential impact threats from the many debris sources on the Space Shuttle during ascent, NASA instituted a significant impact testing program. The results from these tests led to the validation of high-fidelity computer models, capable of predicting actual or potential Shuttle impact events, were used in the certification of STS-114, NASA s Return to Flight Mission, as safe to fly. This presentation will provide a look into the inner workings of the Space Shuttle and a behind the scenes perspective on the impact analysis and testing done for the Columbia Accident Investigation and NASA's Return to Flight programs. In addition, highlights from recent Shuttle missions are presented.

Melis, Matthew E.↗

NASA NTRS1974

The Space Shuttle Program and its technology

Review of the considerations leading to the development of the Space Shuttle system, followed by a description of the system and an analysis of the current program development status. The Space Shuttle system arose out of a need for a reusable vehicle that could routinely carry large payloads (up to 65,000 lb) into earth orbit and return on a cost-effective basis. The system, as currently baselined, consists of a manned reusable Orbiter vehicle and the booster hardware for ground launching. The proposed Orbiter will be 123 feet long, double delta-winged, and roughly the size of a DC-9. The Orbiter will normally carry a crew of four who will work without space suits in a shirtsleeve environment. The Orbiter will be boosted into space through the simultaneous operation of two solid propellant booster rockets and the Orbiter's three high-pressure liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen main engines. The Orbiter will have reusable external insulation, since each vehicle will have a design life of ten years.

Thompson, R. F.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Comparisons Between Pretest Prediction and Flight Test Data of Aerodynamic Loading for EFT-1

Exploration Flight Test One (EFT-1) was an incredible milestone in the development NASA's Orion spacecraft. It incorporated hundreds of articles of flight test instrumentation and returned with a wealth of data. Aerodynamic surface pressures were collected during launch vehicle ascent and capsule reentry and descent. These discrete surface pressure measurements enable comparisons to computational results and ground test data. This paper details the comparisons between pre-test predictions and flight test data for the Orion MPCV Crew Module (CM) and Launch Abort Tower (LAT) during all phases of flight. Regions with strong comparisons, poor predictions, and lessons learned are discussed. 38 pressure measurements were made on the LAT during ascent. Nine of the gauges were Honeywell PPTs and the remainder were Kulite pressure transducers. In order to address bias in the Kulites, a two-point linear calibration was used and the details are discussed. Results from the flight are compared to existing database products. 44 pressure measurements were made on the CM during reentry and descent. Nine of the gauges were Honeywell PPTs and the remainder were Kulite pressure transducers. In order to address bias in the Kulites, a tare was made against the vacuum measurements as described below. Once the bias was removed from the gauges, comparisons between predicted loading and the measured results are compared.

Schwing, Alan M.↗