Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS1962

Some Abort Techniques and Procedures for Manned Spacecraft

This paper is concerned with our present state of knowledge on the procedures and effectiveness of aborts from manned orbital and lunar missions. By abort is meant a deliberate or unintentional termination of the primary mission followed by an expedient return to earth of the payload (spacecraft and crew). A deliberate abort may be initiated if a critical component failed and thus impaired the probability of mission success or the crew's safety. Examples of this kind of abort are failure of the launch guidance system or the oxygen and cabin pressure system. Also, an unintentional abort may occur during the launch phase due to the complete or partial failure of one of the launch-vehicle stages to operate. For each mission every conceivable set of circumstances must be considered and evaluated to see if an abort of the mission is called for and to determine what sequence of events should occur to bring the spacecraft and crew safely back to earth with the highest probability of success. Factors which must be considered are: how to specify and sense an abort condition, how much fuel should be put onboard the vehicle for abort purposes, what size and kind of rocket engines are best suited for each mission, and what compromise is incurred due to other mission requirements? If an abort occurs, the optimum time of application as well as the magnitude and direction of the velocity changes must be determined beforehand and the crew must be clearly informed of what action is required or what the situation is so that they can decide the proper action.

Maneuver↗
NASA NTRS2013

Game Changing: NASA's Space Launch System and Science Mission Design

NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is directing efforts to build the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and other important payloads far beyond Earth orbit (BEO). Its evolvable architecture will allow NASA to begin with Moon fly-bys and then go on to transport humans or robots to distant places such as asteroids and Mars. Designed to simplify spacecraft complexity, the SLS rocket will provide improved mass margins and radiation mitigation, and reduced mission durations. These capabilities offer attractive advantages for ambitious missions such as a Mars sample return, by reducing infrastructure requirements, cost, and schedule. For example, if an evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) were used for a proposed mission to investigate the Saturn system, a complicated trajectory would be required - with several gravity-assist planetary fly-bys - to achieve the necessary outbound velocity. The SLS rocket, using significantly higher C3 energies, can more quickly and effectively take the mission directly to its destination, reducing trip time and cost. As this paper will report, the SLS rocket will launch payloads of unprecedented mass and volume, such as "monolithic" telescopes and in-space infrastructure. Thanks to its ability to co-manifest large payloads, it also can accomplish complex missions in fewer launches. Future analyses will include reviews of alternate mission concepts and detailed evaluations of SLS figures of merit, helping the new rocket revolutionize science mission planning and design for years to come.

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Using NASA's Space Launch System to Enable Game Changing Science Mission Designs

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is directing efforts to build the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will help restore U.S. leadership in space by carrying the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and other important payloads far beyond Earth orbit. Its evolvable architecture will allow NASA to begin with Moon fly-bys and then go on to transport humans or robots to distant places such as asteroids, Mars, and the outer solar system. Designed to simplify spacecraft complexity, the SLS rocket will provide improved mass margins and radiation mitigation, and reduced mission durations. These capabilities offer attractive advantages for ambitious missions such as a Mars sample return, by reducing infrastructure requirements, cost, and schedule. For example, if an evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) were used for a proposed mission to investigate the Saturn system, a complicated trajectory would be required with several gravity-assist planetary fly-bys to achieve the necessary outbound velocity. The SLS rocket, using significantly higher C3 energies, can more quickly and effectively take the mission directly to its destination, reducing trip times and cost. As this paper will report, the SLS rocket will launch payloads of unprecedented mass and volume, such as monolithic telescopes and in-space infrastructure. Thanks to its ability to co-manifest large payloads, it also can accomplish complex missions in fewer launches. Future analyses will include reviews of alternate mission concepts and detailed evaluations of SLS figures of merit, helping the new rocket revolutionize science mission planning and design for years to come.

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Designing Spacecraft and Mission Operations Plans to Meet Flight Crew Radiation Dose Requirements: Why is this an "Epic Challenge" for Long-Term Manned Interplanetary Flight

Outline of presentation: (1) Radiation Shielding Concepts and Performance - Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) (1a) Some general considerations (1b) Galactic Cosmic Rays (2)GCR Shielding I: What material should I use and how much do I need? (2a) GCR shielding materials design and verification (2b) Spacecraft materials point dose cosmic ray shielding performance - hydrogen content and atomic number (2c) Accelerator point dose materials testing (2d) Material ranking and selection guidelines (2e) Development directions and return on investment (point dose metric) (2f) Secondary particle showers in the human body (2f-1) limited return of investment for low-Z, high-hydrogen content materials (3) GCR shielding II: How much will it cost? (3a) Spacecraft design and verification for mission radiation dose to the crew (3b) Habitat volume, shielding areal density, total weight, and launch cost for two habitat volumes (3c) It's All about the Money - Historical NASA budgets and budget limits (4) So, what can I do about all this? (4a) Program Design Architecture Trade Space (4b) The Vehicle Design Trade Space (4c) Some Near Term Recommendations

Koontz, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2018

Payload Utilization in NASA's Space Launch System

With Space Policy Directive 1, the United States administration has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Human Exploration & Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to return to the Moon with missions and infrastructure designed to support a sustained presence in cislunar space, with robotic and human lunar surface operations. NASA’s new deep space exploration system — the super heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion crew spacecraft and revamped launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) — will enable NASA and its commercial and international partners to meet this goal for human exploration of deep space. SLS is the most capable launch vehicle for these efforts, as well as for sending robotic missions deep into the solar system, or even to interstellar space. The vehicle will be available in crew and cargo configurations in progressively more powerful block variants. The initial Block 1 lift capability of at least 26 metric tons (t) to trans-lunar injection (TLI) will be followed by a more powerful Block 1B with 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 accommodation, the Block 1 vehicle can utilize a 5 meter (m) fairing in its cargo configuration with the crew version also able to provide berths for 6U and 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads. The Block 1B crew vehicle will provide as much volume as the space shuttle payload bay in a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) for co-manifested payloads (CPLs). Block 1B cargo vehicles will offer 8.4 m-diameter fairings in 19.1 m and possibly longer lengths, with enough volume to accommodate lunar-orbiting habitat modules and other elements of NASA’s Gateway science outpost. For Mars-class payloads, larger fairings for the Block 2 cargo launcher are under consideration. For missions beyond the Earth-Moon system, SLS offers greater characteristic energy (C3) than any other launch vehicle, enabling shorter transit times or heavier payloads with more robust science packages for missions to the outer solar system. Indeed, the unmatched combination of thrust, payload volume and departure energy that SLS provides opens new opportunities for human and robotic exploration of deep space. This paper will provide an overview of the various vehicle block configurations, their capabilities and payload accommodations for sending primary, co-manifested and secondary payloads to deep space

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

Microbial monitoring of spacecraft air is critical toward assessing the efficacy of microbial controls within the environmental control and life support systems to protect both the crew and the vehicle environment. Additionally, understanding of the atmospheric microbial profiles will be essential toward Mars-forward planetary protection planning. Currently, onboard the International Space Station (ISS), the air is monitored on a quarterly basis using an impaction air sampler. With this method, bacterial and fungal cells and spores are pulled onto plates containing growth medium. Following five days of ambient incubation onboard the ISS, the crew compares the growth to density charts and provides the approximations to the ground. Upon return of the culture plates to the Johnson Space Center’s Microbiology Laboratory, the isolates present are identified for crew health risk assessments. As NASA moves beyond the low-Earth orbit of ISS, sample return will be impractical. As such, a near real-time monitoring capability for the assessment of the spacecraft atmosphere is necessary. Significant strides have been made in recent years to utilize a molecular-based method for microbial profiling of ISS surfaces. The developed method is not dependent on microbial culture, thus removing the associated risk to the crew from high microbial levels, the bias toward detecting only the culturable organisms, and eliminates the need for sample return. The work described here details the evaluation of three different air sampling platforms whose product is amenable to downstream molecular processing and nanopore sequencing. The three samplers were compared in terms of mass and power requirements, ease-of -use, and the resulting data. For the two highest ranking samplers, a basic concept of operations was developed to transfer the sample into the already established preparation and sequencing process. Using these concepts of operations, an in-depth comparison of the molecular data generated was compared to the historical culture-based method. Data from both methods detailed similar microbial profiles, while the molecular method detailed microbial identifications that could not be identified through the culture-based method. The developed method will enable the generation of near real-time microbial profiles of the spacecraft atmosphere.

Brandon J Dunbar↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Network Architecture for NASA's Orion Missions

NASA is planning a series of short and long duration human and robotic missions to explore the Moon and then Mars. The series of missions will begin with a new crew exploration vehicle (called Orion) that will initially provide crew exchange and cargo supply support to the International Space Station (ISS) and then become a human conveyance for travel to the Moon. The Orion vehicle will be mounted atop the Ares I launch vehicle for a series of pre-launch tests and then launched and inserted into low Earth orbit (LEO) for crew exchange missions to the ISS. The Orion and Ares I comprise the initial vehicles in the Constellation system of systems that later includes Ares V, Earth departure stage, lunar lander, and other lunar surface systems for the lunar exploration missions. These key systems will enable the lunar surface exploration missions to be initiated in 2018. The complexity of the Constellation system of systems and missions will require a communication and navigation infrastructure to provide low and high rate forward and return communication services, tracking services, and ground network services. The infrastructure must provide robust, reliable, safe, sustainable, and autonomous operations at minimum cost while maximizing the exploration capabilities and science return. The infrastructure will be based on a network of networks architecture that will integrate NASA legacy communication, modified elements, and navigation systems. New networks will be added to extend communication, navigation, and timing services for the Moon missions. Internet protocol (IP) and network management systems within the networks will enable interoperability throughout the Constellation system of systems. An integrated network architecture has developed based on the emerging Constellation requirements for Orion missions. The architecture, as presented in this paper, addresses the early Orion missions to the ISS with communication, navigation, and network services over five phases of a mission: pre-launch, launch from T0 to T+6.5 min, launch from T+6.5 min to 12 min, in LEO for rendezvous and docking with ISS, and return to Earth. The network of networks that supports the mission during each of these phases and the concepts of operations during those phases are developed as a high level operational concepts graphic called OV-1, an architecture diagram type described in the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF). Additional operational views on organizational relationships (OV-4), operational activities (OV-5), and operational node connectivity (OV-2) are also discussed. The system interfaces view (SV-1) that provides the communication and navigation services to Orion is also included and described. The challenges of architecting integrated network architecture for the NASA Orion missions are highlighted.

Bhasin, Kul B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Manual Crew Override of Vehicle Landings Following G-Transitions

BACKGROUND Manual control during exploration spaceflight consists of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. This crew override capability is critical to enable overall mission success during landing contingencies. However, the introduction of manual override capabilities must be implemented to enable crews to mitigate risks introduced by human error. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. While training and landing aids enable successful landing through disorientation, these adaptive changes may increase cognitive demand that needs to be accounted for in the manual control strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition to develop appropriate countermeasures. METHODS In this study, we will examine operational piloting tasks following International Space Station (ISS) missions in a simulated lunar landing using a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) motion base. The motion-based simulation will be implemented in our laboratory at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and will be available within hours following the return from commercial crew landings. The primary goals of this study are (1) to understand the impact of spaceflight on crew ability to perform manual crew override tasks, (2) to examine how adaptive changes in vestibular and cognitive function relate to changes in manual crew override proficiency, and (3) compare performance during late “just-in-time” on-board training with early post-flight crew performance. The impact of spaceflight on piloting capability will be assessed from pre- versus post-flight changes in crewmembers assigned to either short duration (< 30 day) or long duration (~6- month) missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Individual differences in post-flight vestibular and cognitive changes include motion sickness reports, measures of tilt motion perception accuracy and precision, and dual-task tracking. During the 6DOF lunar simulation, the crew will manually takeover attitude and rate-of-descent to the nominal or re-designated landing aim point during the approach phase. The outcome measures for the lunar crew override tasks will be the percent time maintaining actual vehicle states, e.g., attitude and rate-of-descent, within recommended guidance during the landing approach, number and maximum deviation outside limits, and root mean square error (RMSE). Given that “just-in-time” (JIT) training is an operational expectation for the Human Landing System (HLS) program, all participants will perform late inflight JIT training for each manual crew override task in which they will participate. Crew proficiency will be captured inflight during JIT training that will be implemented on a laptop with hand controllers to allow the crewmember to practice the landing task procedures like the approach implemented for JIT training with Shuttle landing and ISS telerobotic tasks. COUNTERMEASURE UPDATES The lunar lander simulation has been implemented onto a two-laptop display system where subjects select from alternative landing points, based upon avoiding hazards that the on-board system identifies during the landing. The subject makes inputs using a rotational hand controller (i.e., joystick) and a translational hand controller, which are processed by simulated vehicle dynamics to update the vehicle attitude and rate of descent. Subjects will utilize a combination of flight, situation, and status displays to monitor the state of the simulated vehicle. The simulation exports tilt and translation movements to a 6DOF motion base synced to visual movements and provides representative vestibular cues to the subject while performing the task inside an enclosed cabin featuring a simulated lunar out-the-window view and a heads-down lander cockpit view. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew override capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew override performance will help better characterize the manual control risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. The inclusion of “just-in-time” on-board training will ensure we are characterizing changes in override proficiency with this expected countermeasure in place. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors acknowledge contributions from Draper, HLS Joint Test Panel, Crew HLS Interfaces for Piloting Working Group, and Dynamic Skills Trainer (DST) Lab toward the development of the lunar landing simulation. This project is funded by the Human Health Countermeasures Element.

Austin M Bollinger↗
NASA NTRS2007

Ares Launch Vehicles Overview: Space Access Society

America is returning to the Moon in preparation for the first human footprint on Mars, guided by the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration. This presentation will discuss NASA's mission, the reasons for returning to the Moon and going to Mars, and how NASA will accomplish that mission in ways that promote leadership in space and economic expansion on the new frontier. The primary goals of the Vision for Space Exploration are to finish the International Space Station, retire the Space Shuttle, and build the new spacecraft needed to return people to the Moon and go to Mars. The Vision commits NASA and the nation to an agenda of exploration that also includes robotic exploration and technology development, while building on lessons learned over 50 years of hard-won experience. NASA is building on common hardware, shared knowledge, and unique experience derived from the Apollo Saturn, Space Shuttle, and contemporary commercial launch vehicle programs. The journeys to the Moon and Mars will require a variety of vehicles, including the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, which transports the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, which transports the Lunar Surface Access Module. The architecture for the lunar missions will use one launch to ferry the crew into orbit, where it will rendezvous with the Lunar Module in the Earth Departure Stage, which will then propel the combination into lunar orbit. The imperative to explore space with the combination of astronauts and robots will be the impetus for inventions such as solar power and water and waste recycling. This next chapter in NASA's history promises to write the next chapter in American history, as well. It will require this nation to provide the talent to develop tools, machines, materials, processes, technologies, and capabilities that can benefit nearly all aspects of life on Earth. Roles and responsibilities are shared between a nationwide Government and industry team. The Exploration Launch Projects Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center manages the design, development, testing, and evaluation of both vehicles and serves as lead systems integrator. A little over a year after it was chartered, the Exploration Launch Projects team is testing engine components, refining vehicle designs, performing wind tunnel tests, and building hardware for the first flight test of Ares I-X, scheduled for spring 2009. The Exploration Launch Projects team conducted the Ares I System Requirements Review (SRR) at the end of 2006. In Ares' first year, extensive trade studies and evaluations were conducted to refine the design initially recommended by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, conceptual designs were analyzed for fitness, and the contractual framework was assembled to enable a development effort unparalleled in American space flight since the Space Shuttle. Now, the project turns its focus to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), scheduled for 2008. Taking into consideration the findings of the SRR, the design of the Ares I is being tightened and refined to meet the safety, operability, reliability, and affordability goals outlined by the Constellation Program. The Ares V is in the early design stage, focusing its activities on requirements validation and ways to develop this heavy-lift system so that synergistic hardware commonality between it and the Ares I can reduce the operational footprint and foster sustained exploration across the decades ahead.

Cook, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Design Consideration for the Crew Exploration Vehicle

Managed by NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, a pilot probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) of the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was performed in early 2006. The PRA methods used follow the general guidance provided in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners'. Phased-mission based event trees and fault trees are used to model a lunar sortie mission of the CEV - involving the following phases: launch of a cargo vessel and a crew vessel; rendezvous of these two vessels in low Earth orbit; transit to th$: moon; lunar surface activities; ascension &om the lunar surface; and return to Earth. The analysis is based upon assumptions, preliminary system diagrams, and failure data that may involve large uncertainties or may lack formal validation. Furthermore, some of the data used were based upon expert judgment or extrapolated from similar components~systemsT. his paper includes a discussion of the system-level models and provides an overview of the analysis results used to identify insights into CEV risk drivers, and trade and sensitivity studies. Lastly, the PRA model was used to determine changes in risk as the system configurations or key parameters are modified.

Prassinos, Peter G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: New Launch Capability for Artemis Lunar and Deep Space Science Missions

With stacking and integration of the initial Block 1 Space Launch System (SLS) expected to begin in 2020, NASA’s powerful new launch vehicle is ready to take center stage in the agency’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon. Combining the highest launch thrust and largest payload capacity ever developed, SLS also enables a new generation of high-C3 science missions to destinations such as the gas and ice giants, the Kuiper Belt, and even beyond the solar system. Block 1 is only the beginning, as the vehicle has a planned evolution path to progressively more powerful variants. In addition to these block upgrades providing increased lift capability, the vehicle can be configured to fly in crew configuration with the Orion spacecraft or in cargo configuration with payload fairings for launching science mission or large infrastructure, providing a flexible launch option. For Artemis I, the first SLS flight, the Block 1 vehicle in the crew configuration will send an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to lunar orbit for a thorough systems checkout before the crewed Artemis II flight. The Block 1 vehicle uses a proven propulsion system consisting of solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines to lift more than 27 metric tons [t] to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In its cargo configuration, Block 1 can be fitted with a 5 m payload fairing. The second variant, Block 1B, uses a more powerful upper stage to increase payload mass to TLI to 38-42 t, depending on crew or cargo configuration. In the crew configuration, a co-manifested payload of up to 10 t can ride along in the Universal Stage Adapter (USA), which has as much volume for payloads as a 5 m-class payload fairing. The Block 2 evolved variant will lift 43-46 t to TLI, depending on crew or cargo configuration. The Block 1B and Block 2 vehicles can be outfitted with an 8.4 m-diameter payload fairing, available in 19.1 m and 27.4 m lengths, providing unprecedented volume for payloads. Larger-diameter 10 m fairings may also be an option in the future on the Block 2 vehicle. The unrivalled mass, volume and high-energy launches of SLS can provide significant mission flexibility for payloads and/or additional upper stages to open trade space for a new generation of exploration missions. SLS was designed to meet requirements for launching large-volume infrastructure as outlined in numerous studies of missions to cislunar space or Mars. Mission concept studies from the science community also point toward new possibilities enabled by SLS. Probes with more robust science packages can be sent to the gas giants. Dual spacecraft can be manifested for missions to Uranus and Neptune. Additional third or fourth payload stages can be encapsulated in the payload fairings to achieve missions to the Kuiper Belt or beyond. In addition, the large volume can be used to design and deploy wide-aperture mirrors on future space telescopes and to enable nuclear-thermal propulsion missions. At AIAA Ascend, the SLS Program will provide technical information on vehicle capabilities as well as descriptions of ongoing discussions with mission planners for utilizing the vehicle for an array of deep space missions.

Stephen Creech↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Lunar Mission Availability & Design

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Artemis Program is leading international spaceexploration in a return to human lunar missions. The mission design underpinning this program is a critical aspect inthe integration of the multiple vehicles, processes, and capabilities to execute the most demanding human spaceflightmissions to date. Frequently mission design is characterized solely by its trajectory and the associated delta-velocityto achieve the end-to-end mission on a single day of flight. However, in practical terms for spaceflight missions,actual performance must characterize the translation delta-velocity demand, integrated power and thermal, crew dayoperations, commodities limitations, launch vehicle opportunities, and numerous additional factors across numerouslaunch day dependent variables. These factors together provide a unified set of mission design constraints that mustall be met in order to execute a fully integrated mission. The frequency of achieving all of the mission designconstraints is thus characterized as mission availability. The mission availability reflects the number of opportunitiesin any given period (month, year, etc.) for which an end-to-end mission could be launched. Ensuring adequatemission availability for the Artemis Program is necessary to support long term viability and sustainability of humanlunar exploration. This paper will characterize the driving factors in the Artemis mission availability includingvehicle specific effects from the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Gateway, HumanLanding System (HLS) and other contributing projects. This analysis will also summarize the relevant factors thatfuture vehicles and projects should consider for the integration and expansion of exploration capabilities with theArtemis Program.

Nujoud Fahoum Merancy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Space Launch System Begins Integration, Stacking in Preparation for Artemis I Launch

The Artemis era of human lunar exploration is nearing take-off as NASA’s new super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS), begins stack-ing and integration operations in mid-2020 at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. With a planned upgrade path to progressively more powerful vehicles and availability in crew and cargo configurations, SLS provides a unique and flexible launch solution to send crew, large-scale infrastructure and robotic probes to deep space. The SLS Block 1 vehicle, the initial variant to fly, is optimized for lunar missions with a proven propulsion system consisting of four liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX)-fed RS-25 engines and twin five-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs). The Block 1 vehicle can also be outfitted with an industry-standard 5 m-class payload fairing (the “cargo” configuration) and will launch at least 27 metric tons (t) of mass to trans-lunar injection (TLI). SLS is the backbone of NASA’s Artemis program, which will return the agency’s human spaceflight program to the Moon for the first time since 1972. For the Artemis I mission, SLS will send an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to TLI, where it will enter a distant retrograde lunar orbit and fly 38,000 nmi past the Moon – farther than any spacecraft built for humans has ever traveled. The SLS Block 1 vehicle for Artemis I completed manufacturing in 2019. Several elements, including the upper stage, have been delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) program at KSC and are being prepped for integration and stack-ing. The five-segment solid rocket boosters – the largest and most powerful ever built for flight – are also complete. The booster motor segments for the Artemis I flight are scheduled to ship from prime contractor Northrop Grumman’s Utah facilities and begin stacking and integration at KSC in June 2020. The SLS core stage is the largest rocket stage NASA has ever built in terms of volume and height, and includes the avionics and the tanks that feed cryogenic propellant to the four RS-25s (formerly Space Shuttle Main Engines [SSMEs]). They have been modified with an updated controller and nozzle insulation to protect them from the hotter launch environment. The SLS core stage is currently being test-ed at NASA’s Stennis Space Center (SSC) in a series of “green run” tests to verify it meets design and performance requirements. Following the green run test series, which is scheduled to culminate with a full-duration hot-fire of the four RS-25 engines, the core stage will ship to KSC and be stacked between the sol-id rocket boosters in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Integration of the vehicle will continue with the upper stage, known as the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) on the core stage. Another adapter, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA), connects SLS to Orion and provides housing for 13 6U CubeSat payloads manifested on Artemis I. The CubeSats will be released in deep space after Orion separates from the vehicle, and the flight marks the first ride share opportunity for independent small-sats to deep space. The second major SLS variant to come online, Block 1B, replaces the single-engine ICPS with a four-engine LH2/LOX Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). This more powerful upper stage, along with other vehicle up-grades, will enable the Block 1B vehicle to launch 38-42 t to TLI, depending on crew or cargo configuration. The final evolution of the vehicle, Block 2, will onramp evolved solid rocket boosters to increase mass to TLI to 43-46 t, de-pending on crew or cargo configuration. The Block 1B/Block 2 vehicles can be outfitted with an 8.4 m-diameter payload fairing in 19.1 m or 27.4 m lengths, to provide unprecedented volume for payloads. With the initial Block 1 vehicle completely manufactured and the core stage in final testing before shipping to KSC, the SLS Program and its industry partners have made significant progress manufacturing subsequent vehicles. For the second Block 1 vehicle, the solid rocket motor segments are complete, as are the RS-25 engines with controllers. All five major components of the Artemis II core stage – the forward skirt, LOX and LH2 tanks, intertank and engine section – are manufactured and technicians are installing subsystems at NASA’s rocket factory, Michoud Assembly Facility. The RL-10 engine for the Artemis II ICPS is complete and panels have been machined for its LH2 tank. In addition, panels are machined for the vehicle’s two adapters, with welding scheduled to begin in summer 2020. Flight hard-ware is also in production for the third SLS vehicle, with several booster motor segments cast. The pace of development on the EUS has increased, with the goal to complete Critical Design Review (CDR) in December 2020. Several EUS test rings have been machined at Michoud. The EUS is designed to exe-cute a variety of missions – human spaceflight, deployment of deep-space infra-structure, or high-C3 missions to the outer solar system – with crew and cargo configurations available beginning in the mid-2020s. The near-term goal for the nation’s powerful new space exploration asset, however, is to launch the Arte-mis program, and send the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. At the Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, the SLS program will update the community on the progress of the initial Block 1 vehicle in final green run test-ing, integration and stacking. In addition, this paper will provide an update to the community on the manufacturing status of subsequent Block 1 and Block 1B vehicles.

Steve Creech↗
NASA NTRS2011

HERRO: A Science-Oriented Strategy for Crewed Missions Beyond LEO

This paper presents an exploration strategy for human missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the Moon that combines the best features of human and robotic spaceflight. This "Human Exploration using Real-time Robotic Operations" (HERRO) strategy refrains from placing humans on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars in the near-term. Rather, it focuses on sending piloted spacecraft and crews into orbit around exploration targets of interest, such as Mars, and conducting astronaut exploration of the surfaces using telerobots and remotely controlled systems. By eliminating the significant communications delay with Earth due to the speed of light limit, teleoperation provides scientists real-time control of rovers and other sophisticated instruments, in effect giving them a "virtual presence" on planetary surfaces, and thus expanding the scientific return at these destinations. It also eliminates development of the numerous man-rated landers, ascent vehicles and surface systems that are required to land humans on planetary surfaces. The propulsive requirements to travel from LEO to many destinations with shallow gravity-wells in the inner solar system are quite similar. Thus, a single spacecraft design could perform a variety of missions, including orbit-based surface exploration of the Moon, Mars and Venus, and rendezvous with Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs), as well as Phobos and Deimos. Although HERRO bypasses many of the initial steps that have been historically associated with human space exploration, it opens the door to many new destinations that are candidates for future resource utilization and settlement. HERRO is a first step that takes humans to exciting destinations beyond LEO, while expanding the ability to conduct science within the inner solar system.

Schmidt, George R.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Dual Mission Scenarios for the Human Lunar Campaign - Performance, Cost and Risk Benefits

Scenarios for human lunar operations with capabilities significantly beyond Constellation Program baseline missions are potentially feasible based on the concept of dual, sequential missions utilizing a common crew and a single Ares I/CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle). For example, scenarios possible within the scope of baseline technology planning include outpost-based sortie missions and dual sortie missions. Top level cost benefits of these dual sortie scenarios may be estimated by comparison to the Constellation Program reference two-mission-per-year lunar campaign. The primary cost benefit is the accomplishment of Mission B with a "single launch solution" since no Ares I launch is required. Cumulative risk to the crew is lowered since crew exposure to launch risks and Earth return risks are reduced versus comparable Constellation Program reference two-mission-per-year scenarios. Payload-to-the-lunar-surface capability is substantially increased in the Mission B sortie as a result of additional propellant available for Lunar Lander #2 descent. This additional propellant is a result of EDS #2 transferring a smaller stack through trans-lunar injection and using remaining propellant to perform a portion of the lunar orbit insertion (LOI) maneuver. This paper describes these dual mission concepts, including cost, risk and performance benefits per lunar sortie site, and provides an initial feasibility assessment.

Saucillo, Rudolph J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Orion Heat Shield Manufacturing Producibility Improvements for the EM-1 Flight Test Program

This paper describes how the ORION program is incorporating improvements in the heat shield design and manufacturing processes reducing programmatic risk and ensuring crew safety in support of NASA's Exploration missions. The approach for the EFT-1 heat shield utilized a low risk Apollo heritage design and manufacturing process using an Avcoat TPS ablator with a honeycomb substrate to provide a one piece heat shield to meet the mission re-entry heating environments. The EM-1 mission will have additional flight systems installed to fly to the moon and return to Earth. Heat shield design and producibility improvements have been incorporated in the EM-1 vehicle to meet deep space mission requirements. The design continues to use the Avcoat material, but in a block configuration to enable improvements in consistant and repeatable application processes using tile bonding experience developed on the Space Shuttle Transportation System Program.

Producibility↗