Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “lunar 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.

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

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS2025

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS1989

Lunar construction utility vehicle

The lunar construction utility vehicle (LCUV) is an all-purpose construction vehicle which will aid in the robotic assembly of a lunar outpost. The LCUV will have the following capabilities: (1) must be self supporting including repairs; (2) must offload itself from a lunar lander; (3) must be telerobotic and semi-autonomous; (4) must be able to transport one space station common module; (5) must allow for man-rated operation; and (6) must be able to move lunar regolith for site preparation. This study recommends the use of an elastic tracked vehicle. Detailed material analyses of most of the LCUV components were accomplished. The body frame, made of pinned truss elements, was stress analyzed using NASTRAN. A track connection system was developed; however, kinematic and stress analyses are still required. This design recommends the use of hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells for power. Thermal control has proven to be a problem which may be the most challenging technically. A tentative solution has been proposed which utilizes an onboard and towable radiator. Detailed study of the heat dissipation requirements is needed to finalize radiator sizing. Preliminary work on a man-rated cabin has begun; however, this is not required during the first mission phase of the LCUV. Finally, still in the conceptual phases, are the communication, navigation and mechanical arm systems.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1989

Lunar transfer vehicle design issues with electric propulsion systems

This paper describes parametric design studies of electric propulsion lunar transfer vehicles. In designing a lunar transfer vehicle, selecting the 'best' operating points for the design parameters allows significant reductions in the mass in low earth orbit (LEO) for the mission. These parameters include the specific impulse, the power level, and the propulsion technology. Many of the decisions regarding the operating points are controlled by the propulsion and power system technologies that are available for the spacecraft. The relationship between these technologies is discussed and analyzed here. It is found that both ion and MPD propulsion offer significant LEO mass reductions over O2/H2 for lunar transfer vehicle missions. The recommended operating points for the lunar transfer vehicle are an I(sp) of 5000 lb(f)-s/lb(m) and a 1 MW power level. For large lunar missions, krypton may be the best choice for ion propulsion.

Palaszewski, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS2022

Lunar Transport Vehicle Occupant Protection Requirements

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is preparing for future Artemis missions that will return humans to the lunar surface. A critical piece of these future missions is the Lunar Transport Vehicle (LTV), a transportation device to be used on the lunar surface. A vehicular method of transportation will allow for longer duration missions with increased capabilities to conduct research and transport soil, geological samples, or other materials of interest. Multiple missions to the lunar surface throughout the Apollo program also deployed the use of a lunar vehicle, known as the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). The LRV was used during three of the six Apollo missions that successfully landed humans on the moon. Unfortunately, the LRV did not have any onboard instrumentation, and a large portion of the lunar performance evaluation relied on photographic documentation and crew reports. Therefore, we do not know the actual accelerations and vibrations experienced by the crew when driving on the lunar surface. The objective of this document is to provide occupant protection guidance when designing the LTV. Acceleration, vibration, and jerk metrics imparted by the vehicle relative to the occupant shall not exceed those listed in this document. At the time of writing of these requirements, much of the LTV design is unknown. This document details requirements based on multiple possible restraint configurations and crew orientations.

Kevin R. Dolick↗
NASA NTRS1993

Lunar surface operations. Volume 3: Robotic arm for lunar surface vehicle

A robotic arm for a lunar surface vehicle that can help in handling cargo and equipment, and remove obstacles from the path of the vehicle is defined as a support to NASA's intention to establish a lunar based colony by the year 2010. Its mission would include, but not limited to the following: exploration, lunar sampling, replace and remove equipment, and setup equipment (e.g. microwave repeater stations). Performance objectives for the robotic arm include a reach of 3 m, accuracy of 1 cm, arm mass of 100 kg, and lifting capability of 50 kg. The end effectors must grip various sizes and shapes of cargo; push, pull, turn, lift, or lower various types of equipment; and clear a path on the lunar surface by shoveling, sweeping aside, or gripping the obstacle present in the desired path. The arm can safely complete a task within a reasonable amount of time; the actual time is dependent upon the task to be performed. The positioning of the arm includes a manual backup system such that the arm can be safely stored in case of failure. Remote viewing and proximity and positioning sensors are incorporated in the design of the arm. The following specific topic are addressed in this report: mission and requirements, system design and integration, mechanical structure, modified wrist, structure-to-end-effector interface, end-effectors, and system controls.

Shields, William↗
NASA NTRS1992

The Lunar Roving Vehicle: Historical perspective

As NASA proceeds with its studies, planning, and technology efforts in preparing for the early twenty-first century, it seems appropriate to reexamine past programs for potential applicability in meeting future national space science and exploration goals and objectives. Both the National Commission on Space (NCOS) study and NASA's 'Sally Ride study' suggest future programs involving returning to the Moon and establishing man's permanent presence there, and/or visiting the planet Mars in both the unmanned and manned mode. Regardless of when and which of these new bold initiatives is selected as our next national space goal, implementing these potentially new national thrusts in space will undoubtedly require the use of both manned and remotely controlled roving vehicles. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to raise the consciousness level of the current space exploration planners to what, in the early 1970s, was a highly successful roving vehicle. During the Apollo program the vehicle known as the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was designed for carrying two astronauts, their tools, and the equipment needed for rudimentary exploration of the Moon. This paper contains a discussion of the vehicle, its characteristics, and its use on the Moon. Conceivably, the LRV has the potential to meet some future requirements, either with relatively low cost modifications or via an evolutionary route. This aspect, however, is left to those who would choose to further study these options.

Morea, Saverio F.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Lunar roving vehicle deployment mechanism

The space support equipment that supports the lunar roving vehicle during the flight to the moon and permits the vehicle to be deployed from the lunar module onto the lunar surface with a minimum amount of astronaut participation is discussed. The design and evolution of the equipment are reviewed. The success of the overall lunar roving vehicle design, including the space support equipment, was demonstrated on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions.

Hunter, A. B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Preliminary structural design of a lunar transfer vehicle aerobrake

An aerobrake for a lunar transfer vehicle was designed through the use of the Taguchi design method, structural finite element analyses, and structural sizing routines. A minimum weight aerobrake structural configuration was the objective of the study. Six design parameters were chosen to represent the aerobrake structural configuration. The design parameters included honeycomb core thickness, diameter-to-depth ratio, shape, material, number of concentric ring frames and number of radial frames. Each parameter had 3 levels. The optimum aerobrake configuration resulting from the study was approximately half the weight of the average of all the other experimental configurations. The parameters having the most significant impact on the aerobrake structural weight were identified.

Bush, Lance B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Preliminary structural design of a lunar transfer vehicle aerobrake

An aerobrake concept for a Lunar transfer vehicle was weight optimized through the use of the Taguchi design method, structural finite element analyses and structural sizing routines. Six design parameters were chosen to represent the aerobrake structural configuration. The design parameters included honeycomb core thickness, diameter to depth ratio, shape, material, number of concentric ring frames, and number of radial frames. Each parameter was assigned three levels. The minimum weight aerobrake configuration resulting from the study was approx. half the weight of the average of all twenty seven experimental configurations. The parameters having the most significant impact on the aerobrake structural weight were identified.

Bush, Lance B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Weight optimization of an aerobrake structural concept for a lunar transfer vehicle

An aerobrake structural concept for a lunar transfer vehicle was weight optimized through the use of the Taguchi design method, finite element analyses, and element sizing routines. Six design parameters were chosen to represent the aerobrake structural configuration. The design parameters included honeycomb core thickness, diameter-depth ratio, shape, material, number of concentric ring frames, and number of radial frames. Each parameter was assigned three levels. The aerobrake structural configuration with the minimum weight was 44 percent less than the average weight of all the remaining satisfactory experimental configurations. In addition, the results of this study have served to bolster the advocacy of the Taguchi method for aerospace vehicle design. Both reduced analysis time and an optimized design demonstrated the applicability of the Taguchi method to aerospace vehicle design.

Bush, Lance B.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Lunar NTR vehicle design and operations study

The results of a lunar nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) vehicle design and operations study are presented in text and graphic form. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the potential applications of a specific NTR design to past and current (First Lunar Outpost) mission profiles for piloted and cargo lunar missions, and to assess the applicability of utilizing lunar vehicle design concepts for Mars missions.

Hodge, John↗