Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ground Operational Support System”

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 505 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1979

KSC facilities status and planned management operations

A status report is presented on facilities and planned operations at the Kennedy Space Center with reference to Space Shuttle launch activities. The facilities are essentially complete, with all new construction and modifications to existing buildings almost finished. Some activity is still in progress at Pad A and on the Mobile Launcher due to changes in requirements but is not expected to affect the launch schedule. The installation and testing of the ground checkout equipment that will be used to test the flight hardware is now in operation. The Launch Processing System is currently supporting the development of the applications software that will perform the testing of this flight hardware.

Gray, R. H.↗
NASA NTRS1990

An aircraft Earth station for general aviation

While the focus has been international commercial air traffic, an opportunity exists to provide satellite communications to smaller aircraft. For these users equipment cost and weight critically impact the decision to install satellite communications equipment. Less apparent to the operator is the need for a system infrastructure that will be supported both regionally and internationally and that is compatible with the ground segment being installed for commercial aeronautical satellite communications. A system concept is described as well as a low cost terminal that are intended to satisfy the small aircraft market.

Matyas, R.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Autonomous docking ground demonstration (category 3)

The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is involved in the development of an autonomous docking ground demonstration. The demonstration combines the technologies, expertise and facilities of the JSC Tracking and Communications Division (EE), Structures and Mechanics Division (ES), and the Navigation, Guidance and Control Division (EG) and their supporting contractors. The autonomous docking ground demonstration is an evaluation of the capabilities of the laser sensor system to support the docking phase (12ft to contact) when operated in conjunction with the Guidance, Navigation and Control Software. The docking mechanism being used was developed for the Apollo Soyuz Test Program. This demonstration will be conducted using the Six-Degrees of Freedom (6-DOF) Dynamic Test System (DTS). The DTS environment simulates the Space Station Freedom as the stationary or target vehicle and the Orbiter as the active or chase vehicle. For this demonstration the laser sensor will be mounted on the target vehicle and the retroreflectors on the chase vehicle. This arrangement was used to prevent potential damage to the laser. The sensor system. GN&C and 6-DOF DTS will be operated closed-loop. Initial condition to simulate vehicle misalignments, translational and rotational, will be introduced within the constraints of the systems involved. Detailed description of each of the demonstration components (e.g., Sensor System, GN&C, 6-DOF DTS and supporting computer configuration) including their capabilities and limitations will be discussed. A demonstration architecture drawing and photographs of the test configuration will be presented.

Lamkin, Steve L.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Experimental Evaluation of Verification and Validation Tools on Martian Rover Software

To achieve its science objectives in deep space exploration, NASA has a need for science platform vehicles to autonomously make control decisions in a time frame that excludes intervention from Earth-based controllers. Round-trip light-time is one significant factor motivating autonomy capability, another factor is the need to reduce ground support operations cost. An unsolved problem potentially impeding the adoption of autonomy capability is the verification and validation of such software systems, which exhibit far more behaviors (and hence distinct execution paths in the software) than is typical in current deepspace platforms. Hence the need for a study to benchmark advanced Verification and Validation (V&V) tools on representative autonomy software. The objective of the study was to access the maturity of different technologies, to provide data indicative of potential synergies between them, and to identify gaps in the technologies with respect to the challenge of autonomy V&V. The study consisted of two parts: first, a set of relatively independent case studies of different tools on the same autonomy code, second a carefully controlled experiment with human participants on a subset of these technologies. This paper describes the second part of the study. Overall, nearly four hundred hours of data on human use of three different advanced V&V tools were accumulated, with a control group that used conventional testing methods. The experiment simulated four independent V&V teams debugging three successive versions of an executive controller for a Martian Rover. Defects were carefully seeded into the three versions based on a profile of defects from CVS logs that occurred in the actual development of the executive controller. The rest of the document is structured a s follows. In section 2 and 3, we respectively describe the tools used in the study and the rover software that was analyzed. In section 4 the methodology for the experiment is described; this includes the code preparation, seeding of defects, participant training and experimental setup. Next we give a qualitative overview of how the experiment went from the point of view of each technology; model checking (section 5), static analysis (section 6), runtime analysis (section 7) and testing (section 8). The find section gives some preliminary quantitative results on how the tools compared.

Brat, Guillaume↗
NASA NTRS2011

Implementation and Simulation Results using Autonomous Aerobraking Development Software

An Autonomous Aerobraking software system is currently under development with support from the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) that would move typically ground-based operations functions to onboard an aerobraking spacecraft, reducing mission risk and mission cost. The suite of software that will enable autonomous aerobraking is the Autonomous Aerobraking Development Software (AADS) and consists of an ephemeris model, onboard atmosphere estimator, temperature and loads prediction, and a maneuver calculation. The software calculates the maneuver time, magnitude and direction commands to maintain the spacecraft periapsis parameters within design structural load and/or thermal constraints. The AADS is currently tested in simulations at Mars, with plans to also evaluate feasibility and performance at Venus and Titan.

Maddock, Robert W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Approach to Enterprise Risk Management

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Division has implemented an innovative approach to Enterprise Risk Management under a unique governance structure and streamlined integration model. ESD's mission is to design and build the capability to extend human existence to deep space. The Enterprise consists of three Programs: Space Launch System (SLS), Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO). The SLS is a rocket and launch system that will be capable of powering humans, habitats, and support systems to deep space. Orion will be the first spacecraft in history capable of taking humans to multiple destinations within deep space. GSDO is modernizing Kennedy's spaceport to launch spacecraft built and designed by both NASA and private industry. ESD's approach to Enterprise Risk Management is commensurate with affordability and a streamlined management philosophy. ESD Enterprise Risk Management leverages off of the primary mechanisms for integration within the Enterprise. The Enterprise integration approach emphasizes delegation of authority to manage and execute the majority of cross-program activities and products to the individual Programs, while maintaining the overall responsibility for all cross-program activities at the Division. The intent of the ESD Enterprise Risk Management approach is to improve risk communication, to avoid replication and/or contradictory strategies, and to minimize overhead process burden. This is accomplished by the facilitation and integration of risk information within ESD. The ESD Division risks, Orion risks, SLS risks, and GSDO risks are owned and managed by the applicable Program. When the Programs have shared risks with multiple consequences, they are jointly owned and managed. When a risk is associated with the integrated system that involves more than one Program in condition, consequence, or mitigation plan, it is considered an Exploration Systems Integration (ESI) Risk. An ESI risk may require visibility and risk handling by multiple organizations. The Integrated Risk Working Group (IRWG) is a small team of Risk experts that are responsible for collaborating and communicating best practices. In addition, the forum facilitates proper integration of risks across the Enterprise. The IRWG uses a Continuous Risk Management approach for facilitating the identification, analysis, planning, tracking, and controlling of ESI Risks. The ESD Division, Programs, and Integrated Task Teams identify ESI Risks. The IRWG maintains a set of metrics for understanding Enterprise Risk process and the overall Risk Posture. The team is also actively involved in the modeling of risk for Enterprise Performance Management. With the Enterprise being constrained in Schedule and Budget, and with significant technical complexity, the appropriate use of Risk Management techniques is crucial to the success of the Enterprise. The IRWG achieves this through the modified approach, providing a forum for collaboration on risks that cross boundaries between the separate entities.

Bauder, Stephen P.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Packed Bed Reactor Experiment (PBRE)-2: Pressure Drop Measurements in Microgravity

Single and two-phase flow through porous media are encountered on ground and in space in numerous applications related to life support systems, fuel cells, chemical/materials processing and transporting nutrients to plants. These systems operate differently in the microgravity environment encountered in space travel because the density differences no longer cause the phases to separate or “drain” under the body force of gravity. In the absence of gravity, the interfacial or capillary forces play a more significant role in determining the operational variables such as phase distribution, liquid holdup, and pressure drop especially when the liquid inertia and viscous forces are at minimum. Lower liquid flow rates in air-water two-phase flows represent the case for most of the space processes that depend on two-phase flows in porous media. The Packed Bed Reactor Experiment (PBRE) was developed and flown on the International Space Station (ISS) by NASA to extend a series of fundamental studies of gas-liquid flows through porous media. The goal of the this series of flight experiments (PBRE-1 and PBRE-2) is to better understand the hydrodynamics of two phase flows in porous media in flow regimes dominated by inertia and viscous effects and understanding the role of the interfacial forces and their role in determining the flow dynamics. The flight experiments were preceded by a series of low gravity experiments performed on the low gravity aircraft. These experiments led to the development of a semi-empirical two-phase pressure drop and flow pattern transition in support of a number of reactor beds planned for water reclamation processes onboard of the international space station. The PBRE flight experiment was designed to deliver a wide range of tightly controlled gas (nitrogen) and liquid (water) flows to one of two interchangeable test sections differing only in the type of internal packing material. In this paper, we describe the PBRE-2 experiment and present preliminary low gravity data on pressure drop and compare with semi-empirical model pressure drop predictions. This work is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under grant no. 80NSSC20K0830

Suratman Number↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pressure Gradient and Gas Hold-Up in Two-Phase Flows through Porous Media in Microgravity

Single and two-phase flow through porous media are encountered on ground and in space in numerous applications related to life support systems, fuel cells, chemical/materials processing and transporting nutrients to plants. These systems operate differently in the microgravity environment encountered in space travel because the density differences no longer cause the phases to separate or “drain” under the body force of gravity. In the absence of gravity, the interfacial or capillary forces play a more significant role in determining the operational variables such as phase distribution, liquid holdup, and pressure drop especially when the liquid inertia and viscous forces are at minimum. Lower liquid flow rates in air-water two-phase flows represent the case for most of the space processes that depend on two-phase flows in porous media. The Packed Bed Reactor Experiment (PBRE) was developed and flown on the International Space Station (ISS) by NASA to extend a series of fundamental studies of gas-liquid flows through porous media. The goal of the this series of flight experiments (PBRE-1 and PBRE-2) is to better understand the hydrodynamics of two phase flows in porous media in flow regimes dominated by inertia and viscous effects and understanding the role of the interfacial forces and their role in determining the flow dynamics. The flight experiments were preceded by a series of low gravity experiments performed on the low gravity aircraft. These experiments led to the development of a semi-empirical two-phase pressure drop and flow pattern transition in support of a number of reactor beds planned for water reclamation processes onboard of the international space station. The PBRE flight experiment was designed to deliver a wide range of tightly controlled gas (nitrogen) and liquid (water) flows to one of two interchangeable test sections differing only in the type of internal packing material. In this presentation, we describe the PBRE-2 experiment and present preliminary low gravity data on pressure drop and gas hold-up and compare with semi-empirical model pressure drop predictions.

Brian Motil↗
NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control demonstration of intelligent procedures to automatically initialize a rack onboard the International Space Station (ISS) with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). The autonomous operations concept includes a reduction of the amount of data a crew operator is required to verify during activation or de-activation, as well as integration of procedure execution status and relevant data in a single integrated display. During execution, the auto-procedures provide a step-by-step messaging paradigm and a high level status upon termination. This messaging and high level status is the only data generated for operator display. To enhance situational awareness of the operator, the Web-based Procedure Display (WebPD) provides a novel approach to the issues of procedure display and execution tracking. For this demonstration, the procedure was initiated and monitored from the ground. As the Timeliner sequences executed, their high level execution status was transmitted to ground, for WebPD consumption.

Stetson, Howard K.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Preparing for Mars: The Evolvable Mars Campaign 'Proving Ground' Approach

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) prepares to extend human presence beyond Low Earth Orbit, we are in the early stages of planning missions within the framework of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. Initial missions would be conducted in near-Earth cis-lunar space and would eventually culminate in extended duration crewed missions on the surface of Mars. To enable such exploration missions, critical technologies and capabilities must be identified, developed, and tested. NASA has followed a principled approach to identify critical capabilities and a "Proving Ground" approach is emerging to address testing needs. The Proving Ground is a period subsequent to current International Space Station activities wherein exploration-enabling capabilities and technologies are developed and the foundation is laid for sustained human presence in space. The Proving Ground domain essentially includes missions beyond Low Earth Orbit that will provide increasing mission capability while reducing technical risks. Proving Ground missions also provide valuable experience with deep space operations and support the transition from "Earth-dependence" to "Earth-independence" required for sustainable space exploration. A Technology Development Assessment Team identified a suite of critical technologies needed to support the cadence of exploration missions. Discussions among mission planners, vehicle developers, subject-matter-experts, and technologists were used to identify a minimum but sufficient set of required technologies and capabilities. Within System Maturation Teams, known challenges were identified and expressed as specific performance gaps in critical capabilities, which were then refined and activities required to close these critical gaps were identified. Analysis was performed to identify test and demonstration opportunities for critical technical capabilities across the Proving Ground spectrum of missions. This suite of critical capabilities is expected to provide the foundation required to enable a variety of possible destinations and missions consistent with the Evolvable Mars Campaign.. The International Space Station will be used to the greatest extent possible for exploration capability and technology development. Beyond this, NASA is evaluating a number of options for Proving Ground missions. An "Asteroid Redirect Mission" will demonstrate needed capabilities (e.g., Solar Electric Propulsion) and transportation systems for the crew (i.e., Space Launch System and Orion) and for cargo (i.e., Asteroid Redirect Vehicle). The Mars 2020 mission and follow-on robotic precursor missions will gather Mars surface environment information and will mature technologies. NASA is considering emplacing a small pressurized module in cis-lunar space to support crewed operations of increasing duration and to serve as a platform for critical exploration capabilities testing (e.g., radiation mitigation; extended duration deep space habitation). In addition, "opportunistic mission operations" could demonstrate capabilities not on the Mars critical path that may, nonetheless, enhance exploration operations (e.g., teleoperations, crew assisted Mars sample return). The Proving Ground may also include "pathfinder" missions to test and demonstrate specific capabilities at Mars (e.g., entry, descent, and landing). This paper describes the (1) process used to conduct an architecture-driven technology development assessment, (2) exploration mission critical and supporting capabilities, and (3) approach for addressing test and demonstration opportunities encompassing the spectrum of flight elements and destinations consistent with the Evolvable Mars Campaign.

Bobskill, Marianne R.↗
NASA NTRS1980

The development of a Space Shuttle Research Animal Holding Facility

The ability to maintain the well being of experiment animals is of primary importance to the successful attainment of life sciences flight experiment goals. To assist scientists in the conduct of life sciences flight experiments, a highly versatile Research Animal Holding Facility (RAHF) is being developed for use on Space Shuttle/Spacelab missions. This paper describes the design of the RAHF system, which in addition to providing general housing for various animal species, approximating the environment found in ground based facilities, is designed to minimize disturbances of the specimens by vehicle and mission operations. Life-sustaining capabilities such as metabolic support and environmental control are provided. RAHF is reusable and is a modular concept to accommodate animals of different sizes. The basic RAHF system will accommodate a combination of 24 500-g rats or 144 mice or a mixed number of rats and mice. An alternative design accommodates four squirrel monkeys. The entire RAHF system is housed in a single ESA rack. The animal cages are in drawers which are removable for easy access to the animals. Each cage contains a waste management system, a feeding system and a watering system all of which will operate in zero or one gravity.

Jagow, R. B.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Implementing instructions for KSC systems and safety training

The requirements for the safety training program are reported for KSC including transportation, inspection, checkout operations, maintenance of launch vehicles, spacecraft, ground support equipment, and launch teams. The responsibilities and mechanics for implementing the program are outlined.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2024

Terrestrial Proving Ground Capabilities Needed for Lunar In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) & Construction Concepts of Operation

Incorporating any new technology or system into a human exploration mission or architecture requires development well in advance of the mission to eliminate technology, cost, and schedule risk concerns. It is often stated that technologies need to be at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, i.e. ‘system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)’, by Authority To Proceed (ATP) or by the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for the mission at the latest. There are two game changing capabilities for sustained human exploration of space that can have a significant effect on the overall exploration architecture and the technologies and systems included in the architecture. The first game changing capability, known as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), involves the search for, acquisition, and processing of resources on the Moon and Mars into mission consumables and usable products, and the second is the ability to utilize space resources in the construction of roads, structures, and surface infrastructure. ISRU and surface construction capabilities have the potential to greatly reduce the cost and risk of human exploration while enabling sustained lunar surface and commercial operations. However, ISRU and surface construction systems are complex and must operate in extremely harsh environments, with abrasive regolith and pervasive dust, for long-periods of time, with potentially limited opportunities for maintenance and repair by humans. The complexity of these capabilities and operations also means that there are a limited number of companies that can design, build, and operate end-to-end systems on their own. The majority of the technologies being developed for these systems are by small companies and at the component or subsystem level. With the overarching strategy of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) to enable industry to implement ISRU and surface infrastructure for Artemis and space commercialization, it is therefore important to establish processes and capabilities to promote and foster collaborations among large and small companies involved in ISRU and surface infrastructure development. For ISRU and infrastructure systems and capabilities to be used in Artemis missions and future commercial lunar surface operations, a coordinated framework with virtual/physical integration and testing locations, or ‘Proving Grounds’, needs to be established and operated on a regular basis and open to all. This paper will discuss the ISRU and surface construction near and long-term concepts of operations, and review operations and lessons-learned from the previous ISRU analog field tests. From this information, requirements and capabilities will be proposed to support and enable the integration and testing of ISRU and construction systems with industry, academia, and international agencies, as well as what facilities and organizations could help establish these Proving Grounds.

ISRU↗
NASA NTRS2010

A Modular, Reusable Latch and Decking System for Securing Payloads During Launch and Planetary Surface Transport

Efficient handling of payloads destined for a planetary surface, such as the moon or Mars, requires robust systems to secure the payloads during transport on the ground, in-space and on the planetary surface. In addition, mechanisms to release the payloads need to be reliable to ensure successful transfer from one vehicle to another. An efficient payload handling strategy must also consider the devices available to support payload handling. Cranes used for overhead lifting are common to all phases of payload handling on Earth. Similarly, both recent and past studies have demonstrated that devices with comparable functionality will be needed to support lunar outpost operations. A first generation test-bed of a new high performance device that provides the capabilities of both a crane and a robotic manipulator, the Lunar Surface Manipulation System (LSMS), has been designed, built and field tested and is available for use in evaluating a system to secure payloads to transportation vehicles. National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton Va 23662 A payload handling approach must address all phases of payload management including: ground transportation, launch, planetary transfer and installation in the final system. In addition, storage may be required during any phase of operations. Each of these phases requires the payload to be lifted and secured to a vehicle, transported, released and lifted in preparation for the next transportation or storage phase. A critical component of a successful payload handling approach is a latch and associated carrier system. The latch and carrier system should minimize requirements on the: payload, carrier support structure and payload handling devices as well as be able to accommodate a wide range of payload sizes. In addition, the latch should; be small and lightweight, support a method to apply preload, be reusable, integrate into a minimal set of hard-points and have manual interfaces to actuate the latch should a problem occur. A latching system which meets these requirements has been designed and fabricated and will be described in detail. This latching system works in conjunction with a payload handling device such as the LSMS, and the LSMS has been used to test first generation latch and carrier hardware. All tests have been successful during the first phase of operational evaluations. Plans for future tests of first generation latch and carrier hardware with the LSMS are also described.

Doggett, William R.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Autonomous Satellite Command and Control through the World Wide Web: Phase 3

NASA's New Millenium Program (NMP) has identified a variety of revolutionary technologies that will support orders of magnitude improvements in the capabilities of spacecraft missions. This program's Autonomy team has focused on science and engineering automation technologies. In doing so, it has established a clear development roadmap specifying the experiments and demonstrations required to mature these technologies. The primary developmental thrusts of this roadmap are in the areas of remote agents, PI/operator interface, planning/scheduling fault management, and smart execution architectures. Phases 1 and 2 of the ASSET Project (previously known as the WebSat project) have focused on establishing World Wide Web-based commanding and telemetry services as an advanced means of interfacing a spacecraft system with the PI and operators. Current automated capabilities include Web-based command submission, limited contact scheduling, command list generation and transfer to the ground station, spacecraft support for demonstrations experiments, data transfer from the ground station back to the ASSET system, data archiving, and Web-based telemetry distribution. Phase 2 was finished in December 1996. During January-December 1997 work was commenced on Phase 3 of the ASSET Project. Phase 3 is the subject of this report. This phase permitted SSDL and its project partners to expand the ASSET system in a variety of ways. These added capabilities included the advancement of ground station capabilities, the adaptation of spacecraft on-board software, and the expansion of capabilities of the ASSET management algorithms. Specific goals of Phase 3 were: (1) Extend Web-based goal-level commanding for both the payload PI and the spacecraft engineer; (2) Support prioritized handling of multiple PIs as well as associated payload experimenters; (3) Expand the number and types of experiments supported by the ASSET system and its associated spacecraft; (4) Implement more advanced resource management, modeling and fault management capabilities that integrate the space and ground segments of the space system hardware; (5) Implement a beacon monitoring test; (6) Implement an experimental blackboard controller for space system management; (7) Further define typical ground station developments required for Internet-based remote control and for full system automation of the PI-to-spacecraft link. Each of those goals is examined in the next section. Significant sections of this report were also published as a conference paper.

Cantwell, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2012

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) Traverse Planning

Slide 1] The Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) include large scale field tests of manned lunar surface exploration systems; these tests are sponsored by the Director s Office of Integration (DOI) [sic, Directorate Integration Office (DIO)] within the Constellation Program and they include geological exploration objectives along well designed traverses. These traverses are designed by the Traverse Team, an ad hoc group of some 10 geologists form NASA and academia, as well as experts in mission operation who define the operational constraints applicable to specific simulation scenarios. [Slide 2] These DRATS/DOI tests focus on 1) the performance of major surface systems, such as rovers, mobile habitats, communication architecture, navigation tools, earth-moving equipment, unmanned reconnaissance robots etc. under realistic field conditions and 2) the development of operational concepts that integrate all of these systems into a single, optimized operation. The participation of science is currently concentrating on geological sciences, with the objective of developing suitable tools and documentation protocols to sample representative rocks for Earth return, and to generate some conceptual understanding of the ground support structure that will be needed for the real time science-support of a lunar surface crew. [Slide 3] Major surface systems exercised in the June 2008 analog tests at the Moses Lake site, WA. [Upper left] The Chariot Rover (developed at Johnson Space Center) is an unpressurized vehicle driven by fully suited crews. [Upper right] Mobile Habitat provided by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Chariot is the more nimble and mobile vehicle and the idea is to drive the habitat remotely to some rendezvous place where Chariot would catch up - after a lengthy traverse - at the end of the day. [Lower left] The K-10 remotely operated robot (provided by NASA Ames Research Center) conducting scientific/geologic reconnaissance of the prospective traverse region, locating specific sites for more detailed exploration by Chariot and its crew. [Lower right] This earth-moving equipment (provided by NASA KSC) can be attached to Chariot and is envisioned to, for example, level an outpost site or to mine lunar soi

Horz, Friedrich↗
NASA NTRS1993

The X-15/HL-20 operations support comparison

During the 1960's, the United States X-15 rocket-plane research program successfully demonstrated the ability to support a reusable vehicle operating in a near-space environment. The similarity of the proposed HL-20 lifting body concept in general size, weight, and subsystem composition to that of the X-15 provided an opportunity for a comparison of the predicted support manpower and turnaround times with those experienced in the X-15 program. Information was drawn from both reports and discussions with X-15 program personnel to develop comparative operations and support data. Based on the assumption of comparability between the two systems, the predicted staffing levels, skill mix, and refurbishment times of an operational HL-20 appear to be similar to those experienced by the X-15 for ground support. However, safety, environmental, and support requirements have changed such that the HL-20 will face a different operating environment than existed at Edwards during the 1950's and 1960's. Today's operational standards may impose additional requirements on the HL-20 that will add to the maintenance and support burden estimate based on the X-15 analogy.

Morris, W. Douglas↗
NASA NTRS2011

Operation Evaluation of the VEGGIE Food Production System in the Habitat Demonstration Unit

The 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) of the VEGGIE Food Production System in the Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM) was the first operational evaluation of salad crop production technology in a NASA analog test. A systematic evaluation of rooting media and nutrient delivery systems were evaluated for three lettuce cultivars that have shown promise as candidates for a surface based food production system. The VEGGIE nutrient delivery system worked well, was able to be maintained by multiple operators with a minimum of training, and supported excellent lettuce growth for the duration of the test. A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) evaluation was performed using ProSantm as sanitation agent prior to consumption was approved, and the crew was allowed to consume the lettuce grown using the VEGGIE light cap and gravity based nutrient delivery system at the completion of the 14-day DRAT field test. The DRAT field test validated the crew operations; Growth of all lettuce cultivars was excellent. The operational DRAT field testing in the HDU identified light quality issues related to morphology and pigment development that will need to be addressed through additional testing. Feedback from the crew, ground support personnel, and human factors leads was uniformly positive on the psychological value of having the crop production system in the excursion module. A number of areas have been identified for future work, to minimize the "footprint" of the Food Production system through creative use of unused wall and floor space in the unit.

Stutte, Gary W.↗