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 523 records · Page 29

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance System Model Development

While the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) utilizes a Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System to represent all the Agency’s efforts to ensure the health and performance of NASA astronauts, there is no shared mental model of a CHP system at NASA. Some groups may consider a CHP system to be only a medical kit, while others may not be using the concept at all. To facilitate the integration of functions and capabilities to ensure astronaut health and performance during vehicle development, HRP has proposed a CHP Shared Mental Model derived from the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards (NASA-STD-3001 Vol.1/Vol.2). [1] Even though many vehicle, ground, and communication systems as well as mission operations are modeled for the Artemis Campaigns, no mission level CHP system model was created to achieve the intent of the HRP CHP Shared Mental Model. The lack of this model renders it difficult to visualize and understand how the many programs work together to provide the necessary cross program functions and capabilities to ensure the health and performance of the crew throughout an Artemis mission. For this purpose, the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element of HRP developed a CHP system model for the Artemis III and IV missions to provide a view of how each program contributes to and interacts with the overall CHP system. To develop the 2023 Artemis CHP system model, ExMC leveraged existing data and models from the Moon to Mars Program Office, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) and the Orion, Gateway, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs. By using a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach, existing requirements, functions, and concepts of operations were combined to create a single system model focused on representing CHP from the launch to the return to Earth segments of the Artemis III and IV missions. Additionally, by incorporating the HRP Systems Platform for Aggregating and Relating Capabilities, or SPARC tool, the data from the programs was also related back to the 2nd volume of the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standard (NASA-STD-3001, Vol.2) and the human system risks identified by the Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The first version of the 2023 Artemis CHP system model was baselined in Fall of 2023 after the model was demonstrated to be a potentially useful tool for systems engineers integrating CHP capabilities in vehicle development as well as members of the Health and Medical Technical Authority providing oversight of those programs. The model may also be useful to any stakeholder of astronaut health and performance by providing insights on how an Artemis mission satisfies the NASA Human Health, Medical, and Performance Spaceflight Standards as well as how they mitigate the HSRB Human System Risks. This presentation highlights how the model was developed and the possible benefits of the model. [1] NASA HRP (2022), Crew Health and Performance System Whitepaper

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2024

2023 Artemis Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Model Development

Systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2013

Unmanned Vehicle Material Flammability Test

Microgravity combustion phenomena have been an active area of research for the past 3 decades however, there have been very few experiments directly studying spacecraft fire safety under low-gravity conditions. Furthermore, none of these experiments have studied sample and environment sizes typical of those expected in a spacecraft fire. All previous experiments have been limited to samples of the order of 10 cm in length and width or smaller. Terrestrial fire safety standards for all other habitable volumes on earth, e.g. mines, buildings, airplanes, ships, etc., are based upon testing conducted with full-scale fires. Given the large differences between fire behavior in normal and reduced gravity, this lack of an experimental data base at relevant length scales forces spacecraft designers to base their designs using 1-g understanding. To address this question a large scale spacecraft fire experiment has been proposed by an international team of investigators. This poster presents the objectives, status and concept of this collaborative international project to examine spacecraft material flammability at realistic scales. The concept behind this project is to utilize an unmanned spacecraft such as Orbital Cygnus vehicle after it has completed its delivery of cargo to the ISS and it has begun its return journey to earth. This experiment will consist of a flame spread test involving a meter scale sample ignited in the pressurized volume of the spacecraft and allowed to burn to completion while measurements are made. A computer modeling effort will complement the experimental effort. Although the experiment will need to meet rigorous safety requirements to ensure the carrier vehicle does not sustain damage, the absence of a crew removes the need for strict containment of combustion products. This will facilitate the examination of fire behavior on a scale that is relevant to spacecraft fire safety and will provide unique data for fire model validation. This will be the first opportunity to examine microgravity flame behavior at scales approximating a spacecraft fire.

Combustion↗

NASA NTRS2016

A High-Heritage Blunt-Body Entry, Descent, and Landing Concept for Human Mars Exploration

Human-scale landers require the delivery of much heavier payloads to the surface of Mars than is possible with entry, descent, and landing (EDL) approaches used to date. A conceptual design was developed for a 10 m diameter crewed Mars lander with an entry mass of approx.75 t that could deliver approx.28 t of useful landed mass (ULM) to a zero Mars areoid, or lower, elevation. The EDL design centers upon use of a high ballistic coefficient blunt-body entry vehicle and throttled supersonic retro-propulsion (SRP). The design concept includes a 26 t Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) that could support a crew of 2 for approx.24 days, a crew of 3 for approx.16 days, or a crew of 4 for approx.12 days. The MAV concept is for a fully-fueled single-stage vehicle that utilizes a single pump-fed 250 kN engine using Mono-Methyl Hydrazine (MMH) and Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen (MON-25) propellants that would deliver the crew to a low Mars orbit (LMO) at the end of the surface mission. The MAV concept could potentially provide abort-to-orbit capability during much of the EDL profile in response to fault conditions and could accommodate return to orbit for cases where the MAV had no access to other Mars surface infrastructure. The design concept for the descent stage utilizes six 250 kN MMH/MON-25 engines that would have very high commonality with the MAV engine. Analysis indicates that the MAV would require approx.20 t of propellant (including residuals) and the descent stage would require approx.21 t of propellant. The addition of a 12 m diameter supersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator (SIAD), based on a proven flight design, was studied as an optional method to improve the ULM fraction, reducing the required descent propellant by approx.4 t.

Mars lander↗

NASA NTRS2016

A High-Heritage Blunt-Body Entry, Descent, and Landing Concept for Human Mars Exploration

Human-scale landers require the delivery of much heavier payloads to the surface of Mars than is possible with entry, descent, and landing (EDL) approaches used to date. A conceptual design was developed for a 10 m diameter crewed Mars lander with an entry mass of approx. 75 t that could deliver approx. 28 t of useful landed mass (ULM) to a zero Mars areoid, or lower, elevation. The EDL design centers upon use of a high ballistic coefficient blunt-body entry vehicle and throttled supersonic retro-propulsion (SRP). The design concept includes a 26 t Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) that could support a crew of 2 for approx. 24 days, a crew of 3 for approx.16 days, or a crew of 4 for approx.12 days. The MAV concept is for a fully-fueled single-stage vehicle that utilizes a single pump-fed 250 kN engine using Mono-Methyl Hydrazine (MMH) and Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen (MON-25) propellants that would deliver the crew to a low Mars orbit (LMO) at the end of the surface mission. The MAV concept could potentially provide abort-to-orbit capability during much of the EDL profile in response to fault conditions and could accommodate return to orbit for cases where the MAV had no access to other Mars surface infrastructure. The design concept for the descent stage utilizes six 250 kN MMH/MON-25 engines that would have very high commonality with the MAV engine. Analysis indicates that the MAV would require approx. 20 t of propellant (including residuals) and the descent stage would require approx. 21 t of propellant. The addition of a 12 m diameter supersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator (SIAD), based on a proven flight design, was studied as an optional method to improve the ULM fraction, reducing the required descent propellant by approx.4 t.

Mars lander↗

NASA NTRS2006

Generalized Separation of an Object Jettisoned from the ISS

The International Space Station (ISS) Program faces unprecedented logistics challenges in both upmass and downmass. Some items employed on the ISS exterior present significant technical issues for a controlled de-orbit on either the shuttle or an expendable supply vehicle. Such manifest problems arise due to structural degradation, insufficient containment of hazardous pressures or contents, excessive size, or some combination of all of these factors. In addition, the mounting hardware and other flight service equipment to manifest the returned equipment must itself be launched, competing with other upmass. EVA techniques and equipment to successfully contain and secure such problematic equipment result in numerous significant risks to the spacewalking crews and cost and schedule risks to the program. The ISS Program office has therefore developed a policy that advises the jettison of the most problematic objects. Such jettisoned items join a small family of nearly co-planar orbital debris objects that threaten the ISS on several timescales, besides threatening all satellites with perigee below the ISS orbit and the general human population on Earth. This analysis addresses the governing physics and the ensuing risks when an object is jettisoned. It is shown that there are four time domains which must be considered, each with its own inherent problems, and that a ballistic solution is usually possible that satsfies all constraints in all domains.

Bacon, Jack↗

NASA NTRS2018

Payload Utilization in NASA's Space Launch System

A revitalized National Space Council has directed NASA to return to the moon, with a series of preparatory missions paving the way for eventual human exploration. NASA's new deep space exploration system -- the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion crew spacecraft and revitalized launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center -- will enable NASA and its commercial and international partners to meet these goals for human deep space exploration. SLS will be the most capable launch vehicle for these efforts, with an initial Block 1 capability of at least 26 metric tons (t) to trans-lunar injection (TLI). A more powerful Block 1B, available in crew and cargo configurations, with have the power to loft more than 37 t to TLI; the ultimate Block 2 variant will lift more than 45 t to TLI. For payload utilization, the Block 1 vehicle will carry 13 6U CubeSats as secondary payloads while the Block 1B crew vehicle will provide as much volume as the space shuttle payload bay in a Universal Stage Adapter (USA). Block 1B cargo vehicles will offer 8.4 m fairings in 19.1 m and 27.4 m lengths, with enough volume to accommodate habitat modules and landers. For missions beyond the Earth-moon system, SLS offers greater characteristic energy (C3), enabling faster transit or heavier payloads to the outer planets. The first mission of SLS and Orion, launching no earlier than December 2019, will send Orion into lunar distant retrograde orbit (DRO) on an approximately 25-day shakedown cruise known as Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), enabling NASA to verify and validate new systems before sending astronauts to deep space on the next exploration mission. The SLS program and its prime contractors have made significant progress toward first launch, with several major components of the vehicle completed and delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) Program at Kennedy Space Center. Major forward work includes integrating tanks, engines and other major sections into the EM-1 core stage at Michoud Assembly Facility and then shipping the entire core stage assembly to Stennis Space Center. There, it will be installed in the refurbished B-2 test stand for a series of integrated stage tests culminating in a green run hotfire test. The Program's Spacecraft Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) Office, responsible for the in-space stage, adapters and payload interfaces, has largely completed its effort on the Block 1 vehicle and is supporting manufacture of the first Block 1B vehicle. This paper will provide an overview of the Block 1 vehicle, its expected capabilities, secondary payload accommodations and manufacturing status, including structural testing and the challenges of developing a new launch vehicle. A lookahead to the Block 1B vehicle and the payload utilization opportunities it will provide in the 2020s will also be discussed, including the unique capabilities of the vehicle.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Bumper: A Tool for Analyzing Spacecraft Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

“Bumper” is NASA’s computer program for analyzing spacecraft micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) risk. Bumper was developed in the late-1980s and has been continuously used and maintained since. The user base has grown from a few government entities to now include numerous commercial entities as well. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team is responsible for all aspects of the Bumper software. Bumper has been used to characterize MMOD risk on hundreds of spacecraft. All of the International Space Station (ISS) modules, visiting vehicles and numerous external components and systems have been analyzed. Bumper was used to analyze each of the Space Shuttle missions since STS-50. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) MMOD shielding is being developed using Bumper as well. Bumper has also been used on numerous telescopes (Hubble, James Webb, and Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescopes), scientific probes (Stardust, New Horizons, Parker Solar Probe), and Earth observation satellites (Landsat, Joint Polar Satellite System). Bumper is also being used to analyze the micrometeoroid risk and support design of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG) and Mars Sample Return (MSR) missions. The HVIT Bumper Configuration Control Board (CCB) ensures that all changes to the code are approved, reviewed, and documented. Most of the changes are made to add new MMOD damage “ballistic limit equations” (BLEs). BLEs are typically added in response to completion of a hypervelocity impact (HVI) test series and development of an associated BLE. Other less frequent changes include updates of the debris or meteoroid environment models, feature enhancements, and feature retirement. Some BLEs are commercially sensitive and/or proprietary, so the CCB also manages code user-version control and software distribution. The current version – “Bumper 3” – is a FORTRAN executable that utilizes a 64-bit architecture. Bumper 3 has numerous features that make it a powerful tool for analyzing spacecraft MMOD risk. Bumper uses the latest orbital debris and micrometeoroid environment models. Bumper also easily processes large spacecraft geometry models, recognizes hidden surfaces, permits BLE assignment by name or number, and conducts quality checks of the spacecraft geometry model. Bumper 3 can also be used to estimate the effects of particle penetration through thin, high-standoff distance hardware components such as solar arrays and radiators. This is done using a special HVIT-developed technique know as the “3-Part Analysis.” The paper introduces the Bumper 3 MMOD risk analysis code and provides an example MMOD risk assessment showing Bumper’s role in the overall MMOD protection design process.

Lear, Dana M.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Returning an Entire Near-Earth Asteroid in Support of Human Exploration Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

This paper describes the results of a study into the feasibility of identifying, robotically capturing, and returning an entire Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) to the vicinity of the Earth by the middle of the next decade. The feasibility of such an asteroid retrieval mission hinges on finding an overlap between the smallest NEAs that could be reasonably discovered and characterized and the largest NEAs that could be captured and transported in a reasonable flight time. This overlap appears to be centered on NEAs roughly 7 m in diameter corresponding to masses in the range of 250,000 kg to 1,000,000 kg. The study concluded that it would be possible to return a approx.500,000-kg NEA to high lunar orbit by around 2025. The feasibility is enabled by three key developments: the ability to discover and characterize an adequate number of sufficiently small near-Earth asteroids for capture and return; the ability to implement sufficiently powerful solar electric propulsion systems to enable transportation of the captured NEA; and the proposed human presence in cislunar space in the 2020s enabling exploration and exploitation of the returned NEA. Placing a 500-t asteroid in high lunar orbit would provide a unique, meaningful, and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade. This disruptive capability would have a positive impact on a wide range of the nation's human space exploration interests. It would provide a high-value target in cislunar space that would require a human presence to take full advantage of this new resource. It would offer an affordable path to providing operational experience with astronauts working around and with a NEA that could feed forward to much longer duration human missions to larger NEAs in deep space. It represents a new synergy between robotic and human missions in which robotic spacecraft would retrieve significant quantities of valuable resources for exploitation by astronaut crews to enable human exploration farther out into the solar system. The capture, transportation, examination, and dissection of an entire NEA would provide valuable information for planetary defense activities that may someday have to deflect a much larger near-Earth object. Transportation of the NEA to lunar orbit with a total flight time of 6 to 10 years would be enabled by a ~40-kW solar electric propulsion system with a specific impulse of 3,000 s. The flight system could be launched to low-Earth orbit (LEO) on a single Atlas V-class launch vehicle, and return to lunar orbit a NEA with at least 28 times the mass launched to LEO. Longer flight times, higher power SEP systems, or a target asteroid in a particularly favorable orbit could increase the mass amplification factor from 28-to-1 to 70-to-1 or greater. The NASA GRC COMPASS team estimated the full life-cycle cost of an asteroid capture and return mission at approx.$2.6B.

solar electric propulsion↗

NASA NTRS1986

The case for Mars concept

The Case for Mars workshops conducted in 1984 dealt with a program to establish a permanent scientific research base at Mars. The participants, viewed a Mars base as the much needed long-term focus for the space program. A permanent base was chosen rather than the more conventional concept of a series of individual missions to different sites became the permanent base offers much greater scientific return plus greater crew safety and the potential for growth into a true colony. This paper summarizes the results of the workshops. The Mars base will strive for self-sufficiency and autonomy from Earth. Martian resources will be used to provide life support materials and consumables. The Martian atmosphere will provide a convenient source of volatiles: C0 2 , N 2 , and water. Rocket propellant, fuels for surface and air vehicles and possibly power plants, breathable air, and fertilizers will be manufactured from the Mars atmosphere. Food will be grown on Mars using Martian regolith as a growth substrate. A permanent human presence will be maintained on Mars beginning with the first manned landing via a strategy of crew overlap. This permanent presence will ensure safety and reliability of systems through continuous tending, maintenance, and expansion of the base's equipment and systems. A permanent base will allow the development of a substantial facility on Mars for the same cost (in terms of Earth departure mass) as a series of temporary camps. A base equipped with surface rovers, airplanes, and the ability to manufacture consumables and propellant will provide far more extensive planetary exploration over a given period of years than would an Apollo-style approach.

J R French↗

NASA NTRS1992

Project Minerva: A low cost manned Mars mission based on indigenous propellant production

Project Minerva is a low-cost manned Mars mission designed to deliver a crew of four to the Martian surface using only two sets of two launches from the Kennedy Space Center. Key concepts which make this mission realizable are the use of near-term technologies and in-situ propellant production, following the scenario originally proposed by R. Zubrin. The first set of launches delivers two unmanned payloads into low Earth orbit (LEO): the first payload consists of an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV), a propellant production plant, and a set of robotic vehicles; the second payload consists of the trans-Mars injection (TMI) upper stage. In LEO, the two payloads are docked and the configuration is injected into a Mars transfer orbit. The landing on Mars is performed with the aid of multiple aerobraking maneuvers. On the Martian surface, the propellant production plant uses a Sabatier/electrolysis type process to combine nine tons of hydrogen with carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere to produce over a hundred tons of liquid oxygen and liquid methane, which are later used as the propellants for the rover expeditions and the manned return journey of the ERV. The systems necessary for the flights to and from Mars, as well as those needed for the stay on Mars, are discussed. These systems include the transfer vehicle design, life support, guidance and communications, rovers and telepresence, power generation, and propellant manufacturing. Also included are the orbital mechanics, the scientific goals, and the estimated mission costs.

Beder, David↗

NASA NTRS2010

Space Medicine: Shuttle - Space Station Crew Health and Safety Challenges for Exploration

This slide presentation combines some views of the shuttle take off, and the shuttle and space station on orbit, and some views of the underwater astronaut training , with a general discussion of Space Medicine. It begins with a discussion of the some of the physiological issues of space flight. These include: Space Motion Sickness (SMS), Cardiovascular, Neurovestibular, Musculoskeletal, and Behavioral/Psycho-social. There is also discussion of the space environment and the issues that are posed including: Radiation, Toxic products and propellants, Habitability, Atmosphere, and Medical events. Included also is a discussion of the systems and crew training. There are also artists views of the Constellation vehicles, the planned lunar base, and extended lunar settlement. There are also slides showing the size of earth in perspective to the other planets, and the sun and the sun in perspective to other stars. There is also a discussion of the in-flight changes that occur in neural feedback that produces postural imbalance and loss of coordination after return.

Dervay, Joseph↗

NASA NTRS2011

Orion Entry Handling Qualities Assessments

The Orion Command Module (CM) is a capsule designed to bring crew back from the International Space Station (ISS), the moon and beyond. The atmospheric entry portion of the flight is deigned to be flown in autopilot mode for nominal situations. However, there exists the possibility for the crew to take over manual control in off-nominal situations. In these instances, the spacecraft must meet specific handling qualities criteria. To address these criteria two separate assessments of the Orion CM s entry Handling Qualities (HQ) were conducted at NASA s Johnson Space Center (JSC) using the Cooper-Harper scale (Cooper & Harper, 1969). These assessments were conducted in the summers of 2008 and 2010 using the Advanced NASA Technology Architecture for Exploration Studies (ANTARES) six degree of freedom, high fidelity Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) simulation. This paper will address the specifics of the handling qualities criteria, the vehicle configuration, the scenarios flown, the simulation background and setup, crew interfaces and displays, piloting techniques, ratings and crew comments, pre- and post-fight briefings, lessons learned and changes made to improve the overall system performance. The data collection tools, methods, data reduction and output reports will also be discussed. The objective of the 2008 entry HQ assessment was to evaluate the handling qualities of the CM during a lunar skip return. A lunar skip entry case was selected because it was considered the most demanding of all bank control scenarios. Even though skip entry is not planned to be flown manually, it was hypothesized that if a pilot could fly the harder skip entry case, then they could also fly a simpler loads managed or ballistic (constant bank rate command) entry scenario. In addition, with the evaluation set-up of multiple tasks within the entry case, handling qualities ratings collected in the evaluation could be used to assess other scenarios such as the constant bank angle maintenance case. The 2008 entry assessment was divided into two sections (see Figure 1). Entry I was the first, high speed portion of a lunar return and Entry II was the second, lower speed portion of a lunar return, which is similar (but not identical) to a typical ISS return.

Bihari, B.↗

NASA NTRS1970

Experiment module concepts study. Volume 5 book 1, appendix A: Shuttle only task

Results of a preliminary investigation of the effect on the candidate experiment program implementation of experiment module operations in the absence of an orbiting space station and with the availability of the space shuttle orbiter vehicle only are presented. The fundamental hardware elements for shuttle-only operation of the program are: (1) integrated common experiment modules CM-1, CM-3, and CM-4, together with the propulsion slice; (2) support modules capable of supplying on-orbit crew life support, power, data management, and other services normally provided by a space station; (3) dormancy kits to enable normally attached modules to remain in orbit while shuttle returns to earth; and (4) shuttle orbiter. Preliminary cost estimates for 30 day on-orbit and 5 day on-orbit capabilities for a four year implementation period are $4.2 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2012

Software Programs Derive Measurements from Photographs

Even under the most unfortunate circumstances, NASA continues on a path of innovation. After the Space Shuttle Columbia reentered the atmosphere on February 1, 2003, it experienced a catastrophic failure, and the entire crew and vehicle were lost. For the two weeks prior to the accident, Columbia STS-107 was on a mission to perform physical, life, and space sciences research in the unique environment of microgravity. Following the accident, the remaining shuttles - Endeavor, Atlantis, and Discovery - were grounded, and an intense investigation ensued. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board spent nearly 7 months examining the cause of the accident and determining what would ensure a safe return to flight. To this end, investigators performed an extensive review down five analytic paths: aerodynamic, thermodynamic, sensor data timeline, debris reconstruction, and imaging. As part of the evaluation of all the available imagery from Columbia's ascent, orbit, and entry, investigators needed a new method for analyzing still video images to determine the size of the material that fell from Columbia, as well as the distance that the material traveled. John Lane, a scientist at Kennedy Space Center, devised a software program to calculate the unknown dimension of the material in the images, and soon after the investigation was complete, continued to enhance the technology. Eventually, the program that assisted in the Columbia investigation became available for licensing.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2014

Extravehicular Activity Asteroid Exploration and Sample Collection Capability

NASA's Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) is challenged with primary mission objectives of demonstrating deep space Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and tools, and obtaining asteroid samples to return to Earth for further study. Although the Modified Advanced Crew Escape Suit (MACES) is used for the EVAs, it has limited mobility which increases fatigue and decreases the crews' capability to perform EVA tasks. Furthermore, previous Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) spacewalks have benefited from EVA interfaces which have been designed and manufactured on Earth. Rigid structurally mounted handrails, and tools with customized interfaces and restraints optimize EVA performance. For ARCM, some vehicle interfaces and tools can leverage heritage designs and experience. However, when the crew ventures onto an asteroid capture bag to explore the asteroid and collect rock samples, EVA complexity increases due to the uncertainty of the asteroid properties. The variability of rock size, shape and composition, as well as bunching of the fabric bag will complicate EVA translation, tool restraint and body stabilization. The unknown asteroid hardness and brittleness will complicate tool use. The rock surface will introduce added safety concerns for cut gloves and debris control. Feasible solutions to meet ARCM EVA objectives were identified using experience gained during Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS EVAs, terrestrial mountaineering practices, NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 16 mission, and during Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory testing in the MACES suit. The proposed concept utilizes expandable booms and integrated features of the asteroid capture bag to position and restrain the crew at the asteroid worksite. These methods enable the capability to perform both finesse, and high load tasks necessary to collect samples for scientific characterization of the asteroid. This paper will explore the design trade space and options that were examined for EVA, the overall concept for the EVAs including translation paths and body restraint methods, potential tools used to extract the samples, design implications for the Asteroid Redirect Vehicle (ARV) for EVA, the results of early development testing of potential EVA tasks, and extensibility of the EVA architecture to NASA's exploration missions.

Scoville, Zebulon↗

NASA NTRS2014

Application of Fault Management Theory to the Quantitative Selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite

The theory of System Health Management (SHM) and of its operational subset Fault Management (FM) states that FM is implemented as a "meta" control loop, known as an FM Control Loop (FMCL). The FMCL detects that all or part of a system is now failed, or in the future will fail (that is, cannot be controlled within acceptable limits to achieve its objectives), and takes a control action (a response) to return the system to a controllable state. In terms of control theory, the effectiveness of each FMCL is estimated based on its ability to correctly estimate the system state, and on the speed of its response to the current or impending failure effects. This paper describes how this theory has been successfully applied on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program to quantitatively estimate the effectiveness of proposed abort triggers so as to select the most effective suite to protect the astronauts from catastrophic failure of the SLS. The premise behind this process is to be able to quantitatively provide the value versus risk trade‐off for any given abort trigger, allowing decision makers to make more informed decisions. All current and planned crewed launch vehicles have some form of vehicle health management system integrated with an emergency launch abort system to ensure crew safety. While the design can vary, the underlying principle is the same: detect imminent catastrophic vehicle failure, initiate launch abort, and extract the crew to safety. Abort triggers are the detection mechanisms that identify that a catastrophic launch vehicle failure is occurring or is imminent and cause the initiation of a notification to the crew vehicle that the escape system must be activated. While ensuring that the abort triggers provide this function, designers must also ensure that the abort triggers do not signal that a catastrophic failure is imminent when in fact the launch vehicle can successfully achieve orbit. That is, the abort triggers must have low false negative rates to be sure that real crew‐threatening failures are detected, and also low false positive rates to ensure that the crew does not abort from non‐crew‐threatening launch vehicle behaviors. The analysis process described in this paper is a compilation of over six years of lessons learned and refinements from experiences developing abort triggers for NASA's Constellation Program (Ares I Project) and the SLS Program, as well as the simultaneous development of SHM/FM theory. The paper will describe the abort analysis concepts and process, developed in conjunction with SLS Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) to define a common set of mission phase, failure scenario, and Loss of Mission Environment (LOME) combinations upon which the SLS Loss of Mission (LOM) Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models are built. This abort analysis also requires strong coordination with the Multi‐Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and SLS Structures and Environments (STE) to formulate a series of abortability tables that encapsulate explosion dynamics over the ascent mission phase. The design and assessment of abort conditions and triggers to estimate their Loss of Crew (LOC) Benefits also requires in‐depth integration with other groups, including Avionics, Guidance, Navigation and Control(GN&C), the Crew Office, Mission Operations, and Ground Systems. The outputs of this analysis are a critical input to SLS S&MA's LOC PRA models. The process described here may well be the first full quantitative application of SHM/FM theory to the selection of a sensor suite for any aerospace system.

Lo, Yunnhon↗

NASA NTRS1989

Assured Crew Return Capability Architecture

The fundamental elements of the spacecraft Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) are discussed. These elements are access, response time, crew transfer, and the availability of landing sites. The use of an embedded operations concept identified as an essential element of the ACRC architecture. Several rescue assets are identified and evaluated as primary elements of an overall ACRC architecture. The investigation results lead to the following conclusions: optimum on-orbit rescue capability is provided by a rescue system integral to the operational vehicle; ground based rescue provides the most practical coverage for stranded transportation vehicles; and due to infrequent and unexpected use of ACRC, crew operations must be kept simple.

J W Craig↗