Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LANDING MODULE”

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 613 records · Page 34
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1997

STS-83 Postflight Presentation

The flight crew of the STS-83 mission, Cmdr James D. Halsell, Pilot Susan S. Still, Payload Cmdr. Janice E. Voss, Mission Specialists Donald Thomas and Michael Gernhardt, and Payload Specialists Roger Crouch and Greg Linteris, offer a video and still photo presentation of their journey. Included in the presentation are an introduction of the crew and a short briefing by Cmdr. Halsell, the launch and ascent narrated by Still, Spacelab Module narration by Voss, mission control narrated by Cmdr. Halsell, experiment narration by Thomas and Crouch. Also included are video views of the Baja Peninsula, Sinai Peninsula, pivot-point irrigation circles, Comet Hale-Bopp, and the cross-wind landing. The crew poses outside the shuttle for photos. Crew members discuss still photos taken during the mission, including shots of sunsets, the Grand Bahamas Island, Nile River, Baja Peninsula, Indis River of India, and Guadalupe Island.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-84 Day 09 Highlights

On this the ninth day of the STS-84 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Charles J. Precourt, Pilot Eileen M. Collins, Payload Cmdr, Jean-Francois Clervoy (ESA), Mission Specialists Edward T. Lu, Carlos I. Noriega, Elena V. Kondakova, Jerry M. Linenger (download), and C. Michael Foale (upload) spend the morning testing Atlantis' flight control surfaces and thruster jets to ensure they are ready to support the Shuttle's high speed return to Earth. The astronauts' final day on orbit is devoted to stowing equipment and finishing experiment work in the Spacehab module in the cargo bay. In addition to 2,600 pounds of items being brought back from the Mir Space Station, Atlantis is ferrying home astronaut Jerry Linenger, who is returning to Earth after 122 days on the Mir. If Atlantis lands as planned Saturday, Linenger will have logged 132 days in space on this flight, the second longest single spaceflight by a U.S. astronaut behind the record 188-day stay in orbit by Shannon Lucid last year.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1992

STS-45/Atlas-1 TCDT Activities

Footage shows three T-38 aircraft coming in for landing at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and jetting on the runway. The crew of Atlantis gets out of the cockpits and are introduced by Commander Charles F. Bolden to the press. The crew is also shown learning about the Atlas-01 module before suiting up to board Atlantis.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

Organics in APOLLO Lunar Samples

One of many unknowns prior to the Apollo landings concerned the possibility of life, its remains, or its organic precursors on the surface of the Moon. While the existence of lunar organisms was considered highly unlikely, a program of biological quarantine and testing for the astronauts, the Apollo Command Modules, and the lunar rock and soil samples, was instituted in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL). No conclusive evidence of lunar organisms, was detected and the quarantine program was ended after Apollo 14. Analyses for organic compounds were also con-ducted. Considerable effort was expended, during lunar surface operations and in the LRL, to minimize and quantify organic contamination. Post-Apollo curatorial operations and cleaning minimize contamination from particulates, oxygen, and water but no longer specifically address organic contamination. The organic compounds measured in Apollo samples are generally consistent with known sources of contamination.

Allen, C. C.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Orion Guidance and Control Ascent Abort Algorithm Design and Performance Results

During the ascent flight phase of NASA s Constellation Program, the Ares launch vehicle propels the Orion crew vehicle to an agreed to insertion target. If a failure occurs at any point in time during ascent then a system must be in place to abort the mission and return the crew to a safe landing with a high probability of success. To achieve continuous abort coverage one of two sets of effectors is used. Either the Launch Abort System (LAS), consisting of the Attitude Control Motor (ACM) and the Abort Motor (AM), or the Service Module (SM), consisting of SM Orion Main Engine (OME), Auxiliary (Aux) Jets, and Reaction Control System (RCS) jets, is used. The LAS effectors are used for aborts from liftoff through the first 30 seconds of second stage flight. The SM effectors are used from that point through Main Engine Cutoff (MECO). There are two distinct sets of Guidance and Control (G&C) algorithms that are designed to maximize the performance of these abort effectors. This paper will outline the necessary inputs to the G&C subsystem, the preliminary design of the G&C algorithms, the ability of the algorithms to predict what abort modes are achievable, and the resulting success of the abort system. Abort success will be measured against the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) abort performance metrics and overall performance will be reported. Finally, potential improvements to the G&C design will be discussed.

Proud, Ryan W.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Concept of Operations for a Prospective "Proving Ground" in the Lunar Vicinity

NASA is studying conceptual architectures for a "Proving Ground" near the Moon or in high lunar orbit to conduct human space exploration missions that bridge the gap between today's operations with the International Space Station (ISS) and future human exploration of Mars beginning in the 2030s. This paper describes the framework of a concept of operations ("Conops") for candidate activities in the Proving Ground. The Conops discusses broad goals that the Proving Ground might address, such as participation from commercial entities, support for human landings on the Moon, use of mature technologies, and growth of capability through a steady cadence of increasingly ambitious piloted missions. Additional Proving Ground objectives are outlined in a companion paper. Key elements in the Conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include a new space suit, commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a core module with multiple docking ports, a habitation block, and robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. A module providing advanced regenerative life support functions could launch to the ISS, and later move to the Proving Ground. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The Conops describes notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission might be the delivery of a approximately 10-t Transit Habitat element, comanifested with Orion on a Block 1B SLS launcher, to the Proving Ground. In another mission, the architecture might participate in direct human exploration of an asteroidal boulder brought to high lunar orbit by the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The Proving Ground stack could serve as a staging point and tele-operation center for robotic and piloted Moon landings. With the addition of a SEP stage, the architecture could support months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth's sphere of influence, possibly culminating in a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. In a conceptual mission particularly stressing to system design, Proving Ground elements could transit to Mars orbit. Other possible design-driving operations include relocation of the stack with no crew on board, the unpiloted journey of the advanced life support module from ISS to the lunar vicinity, excursions to other destinations in near-Earth space, and additional support for Mars exploration in conjunction with the Evolvable Mars Campaign. The Proving Ground Conops concludes with a discussion of aborts and contingency operations

Love, Stanley G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerodynamic Performance of the Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) Technology Demonstration Mission

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) mission successfully demonstrated the deployment and entry performance of a 6 m diameter Hypersonic Inflatable Decelerator on November 10, 2022. This was the largest blunt body flown to date and demonstrated this inflatable aeroshell technology at scale and conditions relevant to Earth and Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing applications. LOFTID built upon the prior successes of the suborbital IRVE and IRVE-3 missions, leveraging and expanding on the flight experience from these and other planetary and Earth sample return missions. Both the re-entry vehicle and ejectable data module were successfully recovered from the Pacific Ocean, with LOFTID satisfying requirements for decelerator performance and stable flight from orbital entry conditions through parachute deployment and splashdown. This work discusses the pre-flight aerodynamics database and reconstructed flight performance of the LOFTID re-entry vehicle.

LOFTID↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerodynamic Performance of the Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) Technology Demonstration Mission

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) mission successfully demonstrated the deployment and entry performance of a 6 m diameter Hypersonic Inflatable Decelerator on November 10, 2022. This was the largest blunt body flown to date and demonstrated this inflatable aeroshell technology at scale and conditions relevant to Earth and Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing applications. LOFTID built upon the prior successes of the suborbital IRVE and IRVE-3 missions, leveraging and expanding on the flight experience from these and other planetary and Earth sample return missions. Both the re-entry vehicle and ejectable data module were successfully recovered from the Pacific Ocean, with LOFTID satisfying requirements for decelerator performance and stable flight from orbital entry conditions through parachute deployment and splashdown. This work discusses the pre-flight aerodynamics database and reconstructed flight performance of the LOFTID re-entry vehicle.

LOFTID↗
NASA NTRS2009

Impact of Land Surface Heterogeneity on Mesoscale Atmospheric Dispersion

Prior numerical modelling studies show that atmospheric dispersion is sensitive to surface heterogeneities, but past studies do not consider the impact of a realistic distribution of surface heterogeneities on mesoscale atmospheric dispersion. While these focussed on dispersion in the convective boundary layer, the present work also considers dispersion in the nocturnal boundary layer and above. Using a Lagrangian particle dispersion model (LPDM) coupled to the Eulerian Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS), the impact of topographic, vegetation, and soil moisture heterogeneities on daytime and nighttime atmospheric dispersion is examined. In addition, the sensitivity to the use of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)-derived spatial distributions of vegetation characteristics on atmospheric dispersion is also studied. The impact of vegetation and terrain heterogeneities on atmospheric dispersion is strongly modulated by soil moisture, with the nature of dispersion switching from non-Gaussian to near- Gaussian behaviour for wetter soils (fraction of saturation soil moisture content exceeding 40%). For drier soil moisture conditions, vegetation heterogeneity produces differential heating and the formation of mesoscale circulation patterns that are primarily responsible for non-Gaussian dispersion patterns. Nighttime dispersion is very sensitive to topographic, vegetation, soil moisture, and soil type heterogeneity and is distinctly non-Gaussian for heterogeneous land-surface conditions. Sensitivity studies show that soil type and vegetation heterogeneities have the most dramatic impact on atmospheric dispersion. To provide more skillful dispersion calculations, we recommend the utilisation of satellite-derived vegetation characteristics coupled with data assimilation techniques that constrain soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer (SVAT) models to generate realistic spatial distributions of surface energy fluxes.

Wu, Yuling↗
NASA NTRS1988

Lunar landing and launch facilities and operations

A preliminary definition of a lunar landing and launch facility (LLLF or Complex 391) has been formulated. A Phase 3 lunar base is considered. Without specifying specific lunar base scenarios, three traffic levels are envisioned: 6, 12, and 24 landings/launches per year. A single, multipurpose vehicle for the lunar module is assumed. The design and specification of the vehicle and of the lunar base are outside the scope of this study. However, these two items will impact those items considered within the scope of this study because of interactions at the system boundaries. The scope of this study is graphically portrayed with the systems diagram. Based upon this diagram, nine major design items or areas are considered. These items are: (1) landing/launch site considerations; (2) structure, shelter, safety, and environmental needs; (3) landing/launch guidance, communications, and computing needs; (4) lunar module surface transport system; (5) heavy cargo unloading/loading systems; (6) personnel unloading/loading systems; (7) propellant unloading/loading systems; (8) vehicle storage; and (9) maintenance, repair, test and check-out requirements. Initially, a general, conceptual description of each of these items is given. Then, preliminary sizes, capacities, and other relevant design data for some of these items are identified. The Earth-Moon transportation infrastructure and the baseline lunar module design are summarized.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Measurements of Aperture Averaging on Bit-Error-Rate

We report on measurements made at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) runway at Kennedy Space Center of receiver aperture averaging effects on a propagating optical Gaussian beam wave over a propagation path of 1,000 in. A commercially available instrument with both transmit and receive apertures was used to transmit a modulated laser beam operating at 1550 nm through a transmit aperture of 2.54 cm. An identical model of the same instrument was used as a receiver with a single aperture that was varied in size up to 20 cm to measure the effect of receiver aperture averaging on Bit Error Rate. Simultaneous measurements were also made with a scintillometer instrument and local weather station instruments to characterize atmospheric conditions along the propagation path during the experiments.

Bastin, Gary L.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover: System Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover- Systems Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2000

Flight Test Measurements From The Tu- 144LL Structure/Cabin Noise Experiment

During the period September 1997 to February 1998, the Tupolev 144 Supersonic Flyine Laboratory was used to obtain data for the purpose of enlarging the data base used by models for the prediction of cabin noise in supersonic passenger airplanes. Measured were: turbulent boundary layer pressure fluctuations on the fuselage in seven instrumented window blanks distributed over the length of the fuselage; structural response with accelerometers on skin panels close to those window blanks-, interior noise with microphones at the same fuselage bay stations as those window blanks. Flight test points were chosen to cover much of the TU- 144's flight envelope, as well as to obtain as large a unit Reynolds number range as possible at various Mach numbers: takeoff, landing, six subsonic cruise conditions, and eleven supersonic conditions up to Mach 2. Engine runups and reverberation times were measured with a stationary aircraft. The data in the form of time histories of the acoustic signals, together with auxiliary data and basic MATLAB processing modules, are available on CD-R disks.

Rizzi, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Man-Made Debris In and From Lunar Orbit

During 1966-1976, as part of the first phase of lunar exploration, 29 manned and robotic missions placed more than 40 objects into lunar orbit. Whereas several vehicles later successfully landed on the Moon and/or returned to Earth, others were either abandoned in orbit or intentionally sent to their destruction on the lunar surface. The former now constitute a small population of lunar orbital debris; the latter, including four Lunar Orbiters and four Lunar Module ascent stages, have contributed to nearly 50 lunar sites of man's refuse. Other lunar satellites are known or suspected of having fallen from orbit. Unlike Earth satellite orbital decays and deorbits, lunar satellites impact the lunar surface unscathed by atmospheric burning or melting. Fragmentations of lunar satellites, which would produce clouds of numerous orbital debris, have not yet been detected. The return to lunar orbit in the 1990's by the Hagoromo, Hiten, Clementine, and Lunar Prospector spacecraft and plans for increased lunar exploration early in the 21st century, raise questions of how best to minimize and to dispose of lunar orbital debris. Some of the lessons learned from more than 40 years of Earth orbit exploitation can be applied to the lunar orbital environment. For the near-term, perhaps the most important of these is postmission passivation. Unique solutions, e.g., lunar equatorial dumps, may also prove attractive. However, as with Earth satellites, debris mitigation measures are most effectively adopted early in the concept and design phase, and prevention is less costly than remediation.

Johnson, Nicholas L.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Implementation and extension of the impulse transfer function method for future application to the space shuttle project. Volume 1: Analysis and correlation studies

Computer programming, data processing, and a correlation study that employed data collected in the first phase test were used to demonstrate that standard test procedures and equipment could be used to collect a significant number of transfer functions from tests of the Lunar Module test article LTA-11. The testing consisted of suspending the vehicle from the apex fittings of the outrigger trusses through a set of air springs to simulate the free-free state. Impulsive loadings were delivered, one at a time, at each of the landing gear's attachment points, in three mutually perpendicular directions; thus a total of 36 impulses were applied to the vehicle. Time histories of each pulse were recorded on magnetic tape along with 40 channels of strain gage response and 28 channels of accelerometer response. Since an automated data processing system was not available, oscillograph playbacks were made of all 2400 time histories as a check on the validity of the data taken. In addition, one channel of instrumentation was processed to determine its response to a set of forcing functions from a prior LTA-11 drop test. This prediction was compared with drop test results as a first measure of accuracy.

Mantus, M.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Fast Correction For Doppler In MDPSK Signals

Detector of multiple differential phase-shift-keyed (MDPSK) signals designed to effect combination of open-loop estimation of frequency and differential detection of digital modulation. Improved design expected to decrease probability of bit errors in situations in which carrier frequency uncertain and signals transmitted in bursts too short to allow closed-loop tracking of carrier frequency - for example, in transmission of digitally-coded voice signals in land-mobile/satellite communications at ultra-high frequencies.

Simon, M. K.↗