SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew 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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 685 records · Page 38

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2001

Predictive Techniques for Spacecraft Cabin Air Quality Control

As assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) proceeds, predictive techniques are used to determine the best approach for handling a variety of cabin air quality challenges. These techniques use equipment offgassing data collected from each ISS module before flight to characterize the trace chemical contaminant load. Combined with crew metabolic loads, these data serve as input to a predictive model for assessing the capability of the onboard atmosphere revitalization systems to handle the overall trace contaminant load as station assembly progresses. The techniques for predicting in-flight air quality are summarized along with results from early ISS mission analyses. Results from groundbased analyses of in-flight air quality samples are compared to the predictions to demonstrate the technique's relative conservatism.

Perry, J. L.↗

NASA NTRS2007

NASA CEV Reference GN&C Architecture

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be the first human spacecraft built by NASA in almost 3 decades and will be the first vehicle to perform both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions and lunar missions since Apollo. The awesome challenge of designing a Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) system for this vehicle that satisfies all of its various mission requirements is countered by the opportunity to take advantage of the improvements in algorithms, software, sensors, and other related GN&C technology over this period. This paper describes the CEV GN&C reference architecture developed to support the overall NASA reference configuration and validate the driving requirements of the Constellation (Cx) Architecture Requirements Document (CARD, Reference 1) and the CEV System Requirements Document (SRD, Reference 2). The Orion GN&C team designed the reference architecture based on the functional allocation of GN&C roles and responsibilities of CEV with respect to the other Cx vehicles, such as the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and Lunar Surface Area Module (LSAM), across all flight phases. The specific challenges and responsibilities of the CEV GN&C system from launch pad to touchdown will be introduced along with an overview of the navigation sensor suite, its redundancy management, and flight software (FSW) architecture. Sensors will be discussed in terms of range of operation, data utility within the navigation system, and rationale for selection. The software architecture is illustrated via block diagrams, commensurate with the design aspects.

Tamblyn, Scott↗

NASA NTRS2007

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) 101: Constellation EVA Systems

A viewgraph presentation on Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Systems is shown. The topics include: 1) Why do we need space suits? 2) Protection From the Environment; 3) Primary Life Support System (PLSS); 4) Thermal Control; 5) Communications; 6) Helmet and Extravehicular Visor Assy; 7) Hard Upper Torso (HUT) and Arm Assy; 8) Display and Controls Module (DCM); 9) Gloves; 10) Lower Torso Assembly (LTA); 11) What Size Do You Need?; 12) Boot and Sizing Insert; 13) Boot Heel Clip and Foot Restraint; 14) Advanced and Crew Escape Suit; 15) Nominal & Off-Nominal Landing; 16) Gemini Program (mid-1960s); 17) Apollo EVA on Service Module; 18) A Bold Vision for Space Exploration, Authorized by Congress; 19) EVA System Missions; 20) Configurations; 21) Reduced Gravity Program; and 22) Other Opportunities.

Jordan, Nicole C.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Overview for Attached Payload Accommodations and Environments

External payload accommodations are provided at attach sites on the U.S provided ELC, U.S. Truss, the Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM EF) and the Columbus EPF (External Payload Facilities). The Integrated Truss Segment (ITS) provides the backbone structure for the ISS. It attaches the solar and thermal control arrays to the rest of the complex, and houses cable distribution trays Extravehicular Activity (EVA) support equipment such as handholds and lighting; and providing for Extravehicular Robotic (EVR) accommodations using the Mobile Servicing System (MSS). It also provides logistics and maintenance, and payload attachment sites. The attachment sites accommodate logistics and maintenance and payloads carriers, zenith and nadir. The JEM-EF, a back porch-like attachment to the JEM Pressurized Module, accommodates up to eight payloads, which can be serviced by the crew via the JEM PM's airlock and dedicated robotic arm. The Columbus-EPF is another porch-like platform that can accommodate two zenith and two nadir looking payloads.

Schaffer, Craig↗

NASA NTRS2009

Low Impact Docking System (LIDS)

Since 1996, NASA has been developing a docking system that will simplify operations and reduce risks associated with mating spacecraft. This effort has focused on developing and testing an original, reconfigurable, active, closed-loop, force-feedback controlled docking system using modern technologies. The primary objective of this effort has been to design a docking interface that is tunable to the unique performance requirements for all types of mating operations (i.e. docking and berthing, autonomous and piloted rendezvous, and in-space assembly of vehicles, modules and structures). The docking system must also support the transfer of crew, cargo, power, fluid, and data. As a result of the past 10 years of docking system advancement, the Low Impact Docking System or LIDS was developed. The current LIDS design incorporates the lessons learned and development experiences from both previous and existing docking systems. LIDS feasibility was established through multiple iterations of prototype hardware development and testing. Benefits of LIDS include safe, low impact mating operations, more effective and flexible mission implementation with an anytime/anywhere mating capability, system level redundancy, and a more affordable and sustainable mission architecture with reduced mission and life cycle costs. In 1996 the LIDS project, then known as the Advanced Docking Berthing System (ADBS) project, launched a four year developmental period. At the end of the four years, the team had built a prototype of the soft-capture hardware and verified the control system that will be used to control the soft-capture system. In 2001, the LIDS team was tasked to work with the X- 38 Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) project and build its first Engineering Development Unit (EDU).

LaBauve, Tobie E.↗

NASA NTRS2016

System and Method for Providing a Real Time Audible Message to a Pilot

A system and method for providing information to a crew of the aircraft while in-flight. The system includes a module having: a receiver for receiving a message while in-flight; a filter having a set of screening parameters and operative to filter the message based on the set of screening parameters; and a converter for converting the message into an audible message. The message includes a pilot report having at least one of weather information, separation information, congestion information, flight deviation information and destination information. The message is sent to the aircraft by another aircraft or an air traffic controller.

Johnson, Walter W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Spatiotemporal Analysis of High-Resolution Pressure-Sensitive Paint Measurements on a Launch Vehicle Wind Tunnel Model

An accurate understanding of unsteady aerodynamic loads is critical for launch vehicle structural design and for development of the vibro-acoustic environment for payload components. Analysts commonly use point-wise surface pressure measurements from wind tunnel testing to build statistical models of the in-flight turbulent boundary layer flow structures, often extrapolating over large swaths of the surface due to measurement sparsity. We present novel results from a transonic wind tunnel test using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) and show how it can be used to visualize and quantify localized turbulent boundary layer wall pressure statistics with unprecedented spatial resolution. The wind tunnel model is a scaled model of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket Block 1B Crew configuration and analysis focused on the compression corner between the Service Module fairing and the Universal Stage Adapter.

Corcos Model↗

NASA NTRS1994

Vulnerability of manned spacecraft to crew loss from orbital debris penetration

Orbital debris growth threatens the survival of spacecraft systems from impact-induced failures. Whereas the probability of debris impact and spacecraft penetration may currently be calculated, another parameter of great interest to safety engineers is the probability that debris penetration will cause actual spacecraft or crew loss. Quantifying the likelihood of crew loss following a penetration allows spacecraft designers to identify those design features and crew operational protocols that offer the highest improvement in crew safety for available resources. Within this study, a manned spacecraft crew survivability (MSCSurv) computer model is developed that quantifies the conditional probability of losing one or more crew members, P(sub loss/pen), following the remote likelihood of an orbital debris penetration into an eight module space station. Contributions to P(sub loss/pen) are quantified from three significant penetration-induced hazards: pressure wall rupture (explosive decompression), fragment-induced injury, and 'slow' depressurization. Sensitivity analyses are performed using alternate assumptions for hazard-generating functions, crew vulnerability thresholds, and selected spacecraft design and crew operations parameters. These results are then used to recommend modifications to the spacecraft design and expected crew operations that quantitatively increase crew safety from orbital debris impacts.

Williamsen, J. E.↗

NASA NTRS2008

International Space Station Medical Operations

NASA is currently the leader, in conjunction with our Russian counterpart co-leads, of the Multilateral Medical Policy Board (MMPB), the Multilateral Medical Operations Panel (MMOP), which coordinates medical system support for International Space Station (ISS) crews, and the Multilateral Space Medicine Board (MSMB), which medically certifies all crewmembers for space flight on-board the ISS. These three organizations have representatives from NASA, RSA-IMBP (Russian Space Agency- Institute for Biomedical Problems), GCTC (Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center), ESA (European Space Agency), JAXA (Japanese Space Agency), and CSA (Canadian Space Agency). The policy and strategic coordination of ISS medical operations occurs at this level, and includes interactions with MMOP working groups in Radiation Health, Countermeasures, Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA), Informatics, Environmental Health, Behavioral Health and Performance, Nutrition, Clinical Medicine, Standards, Post-flight Activities and Rehabilitation, and Training. Each ISS Expedition has a lead Crew Surgeon from NASA and a Russian Crew Surgeon from GCTC assigned to the mission. Day-to-day issues are worked real-time by the flight surgeons and biomedical engineers (also called the Integrated Medical Group) on consoles at the MCC (Mission Control Center) in Houston and the TsUP (Center for Flight Control) in Moscow/Korolev. In the future, this may also include mission control centers in Europe and Japan, when their modules are added onto the ISS. Private medical conferences (PMCs) are conducted regularly and upon crew request with the ISS crew via private audio and video communication links from the biomedical MPSR (multipurpose support room) at MCC Houston. When issues arise in the day-to-day medical support of ISS crews, they are discussed and resolved at the SMOT (space medical operations team) meetings, which occur weekly among the International Partners. Any medical or life science issue that is not resolved at the SMOT can be taken to the Mission Management Team meeting, which occurs biweekly from MCC-Houston. This meeting includes the other International Partners and all flight support and console position representatives via teleconference. ISS Crew Surgeons have handled many medical conditions on orbit; including skin rashes, dental abscesses, lacerations, and STT segment EKG changes. Fortunately to date, there have not been any forced medical evacuations from the ISS. This speaks well for the implementation of the primary, secondary and even tertiary prevention strategies invoked by the Integrated Medical Group, as there were several medical evacuations during the previous Russian space stations.

Jones, Jeffrey A.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Space Station Freedom pressurized element interior design process

The process used to develop the on-orbit working and living environment of the Space Station Freedom has some very unique constraints and conditions to satisfy. The goal is to provide maximum efficiency and utilization of the available space, in on-orbit, zero G conditions that establishes a comfortable, productive, and safe working environment for the crew. The Space Station Freedom on-orbit living and working space can be divided into support for three major functions: (1) operations, maintenance, and management of the station; (2) conduct of experiments, both directly in the laboratories and remotely for experiments outside the pressurized environment; and (3) crew related functions for food preparation, housekeeping, storage, personal hygiene, health maintenance, zero G environment conditioning, and individual privacy, and rest. The process used to implement these functions, the major requirements driving the design, unique considerations and constraints that influence the design, and summaries of the analysis performed to establish the current configurations are described. Sketches and pictures showing the layout and internal arrangement of the Nodes, U.S. Laboratory and Habitation modules identify the current design relationships of the common and unique station housekeeping subsystems. The crew facilities, work stations, food preparation and eating areas (galley and wardroom), and exercise/health maintenance configurations, waste management and personal hygiene area configuration are shown. U.S. Laboratory experiment facilities and maintenance work areas planned to support the wide variety and mixtures of life science and materials processing payloads are described.

Hopson, George D.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Space Station Freedom pressurized element interior design process

Hopson, George D.↗

NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activity Report / Flight Day Highlights Day 2

STS-106 was launched on Sept 8, 2000 at 8:45 a.m. The crew was commanded by Terrence W. Wilcutt, the pilot was Scott D. Altman. The mission specialists were Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov. During the 11-day mission, the crew spent a week inside the International Space Station (ISS) unloading supplies from both a double SPACEHAB cargo module in the rear of the Atlantis cargo bay and from a Russian Progress M-1 resupply craft docked to the aft end of the Zvezda Service Module. The videotape shows the activities of the second day of the flight and the preparations for docking with the ISS. Shown on the video are shots of the flight deck on the shuttle, the shuttle payload arm, and shots of the crew eating lunch.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1990

An expert system to advise astronauts during experiments: The protocol manager module

Perhaps the scarcest resource for manned flight experiments - on Spacelab or on the Space Station Freedom - will continue to be crew time. To maximize the efficiency of the crew and to make use of their abilities to work as scientist collaborators as well as equipment operators, normally requires more training in a wide variety of disciplines than is practical. The successful application of on-board expert systems, as envisioned by the Principal Investigator in a Box program, should alleviate the training bottleneck and provide the astronaut with the guidance and coaching needed to permit him or her to operate an experiment according to the desires and knowledge of the PI, despite changes in conditions. The Protocol Manager module of the system is discussed. The Protocol Manager receives experiment data that has been summarized and categorized by the other modules. The Protocol Manager acts on the data in real-time, by employing expert system techniques. Its recommendations are based on heuristics provided by the Principal Investigator in charge of the experiment. This prototype was developed on a Macintosh II by employing CLIPS, a forward-chaining rule-based system, and HyperCard as an object-oriented user interface builder.

Haymann-Haber, Guido↗

NASA NTRS1993

Design and Testing of a One-Third Scale Soyuz TM Descent Module Spartan Conversion Project Super Loki Instrumentation

The 1992-1993 senior Aerospace Engineering Design class continued work on the post landing configurations for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle. The Assured Crew Return Vehicle will be permanently docked to the space station fulfilling NASA's commitment of Assured Crew Return Capability in the event of an accident or illness aboard the space station. The objective of the project was to give the Assured Crew Return Vehicle Project Office data to feed into their feasibility studies. Three design teams were given the task of developing models with dynamically and geometrically scaled characteristics. Groups one and two combined efforts to design a one-third scale model of the Russian Soyuz TM Descent Module, and an on-board flotation system. This model was designed to determine the flotation characteristics and test the effects of a rigid flotation and orientation system. Group three designed a portable water wave test facility to be located on campus. Because of additional funding from Thiokol Corporation, testing of the Soyuz model and flotation systems took place at the Offshore Technology Research Center. Universities Space Research Association has been studying the use of small expendable launch vehicles for missions which cost less than 200 million dollars. The Crusader2B. which consists of the original Spartan first and second stage with an additional Spartan second stage and the Minuteman III upper stage is being considered for this task. University of Central Florida project accomplishments include an analysis of launch techniques, a modeling technique to determine flight characteristics, and input into the redesign of an existing mobile rail launch platform.

Anderson, Loren A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Systems Engineering Approach for Astronaut Missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration directs NASA to design and develop a new generation of safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation systems to hlfill the Nation s strategic goals and objectives. These launch vehicles will provide the capability for astronauts to conduct scientific exploration that yields new knowledge from the unique vantage point of space. American leadership in opening new fi-ontiers will improve the quality of life on Earth for generations to come. The Exploration Launch Projects office is responsible for delivering the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) that will loft the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into low-Earth orbit (LEO) early next decade, and for the heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) that will deliver the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) to LEO for astronaut return trips to the Moon by 2020 in preparation for the eventual first human footprint on Mars. Crew travel to the International Space Station will be made available as soon possible after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010.

Cook, Stephen A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Exploration Launch Projects Systems Engineering Approach for Astronaut Missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗

NASA NTRS2001

STS-105/Discovery/ISS 7A.1: Pre-Launch Activities, Launch, Orbit Activities and Landing

The crew of Space Shuttle Discovery on STS-105 is introduced at their pre-launch meal and at suit-up. The crew members include Commander Scott Horowitz, Pilot Rick Sturckow, and Mission Specialists Patrick Forrester and Daniel Barry, together with the Expedition 3 crew of the International Space Station (ISS). The Expedition 3 crew includes Commander Frank Culbertson, Soyuz Commander Vladimir Dezhurov, and Flight Engineer Mikhail Tyurin. When the astronauts depart for the launch pad in the Astrovan, their convoy is shown from above. Upon reaching the launch pad, they conduct a walk around of the shuttle, display signs for family members while being inspected in the White Room, and are strapped into their seats onboard Disciovery. The video includes footage of Discovery in the Orbiter Processing Facility, and some of the pre-launch procedures at the Launch Control Center are shown. The angles of launch replays include: TV-1, Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad A, Tower 1, UCS-15, Grandstand, OTV-70, Onboard, IGOR, and UCS-23. The moment of docking between Discovery and the ISS is shown from inside Discovery's cabin. While in orbit, the crew conducted extravehicular activities (EVAs) to attach an experiments container, and install handrails on the Destiny module of the ISS. The video shows the docking and unloading of the Leonardo Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM) onto the ISS. The deployment of a satellite from Discovery with the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the background is shown. Cape Canaveral is also shown from space. Landing replays include VAB, Tower 1, mid-field, South End SLF, North End SLF, Tower 2, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, and Pilot Point of View (PPOV). NASA Administrator Dan Goldin meets the crew upon landing and participates in their walk around of Discovery. The video concludes with a short speech by commander Horowitz.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1994

Comment on 'Guidance for an Aerocapture Maneuver

It is stated that the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle being aerocaptured are controlled by "altering the angle of attack" and thereby controlling the lift coefficient. Furthermore, the resulting variation of drag coefficient with angle of attack was ignored. The purpose of this Comment is to point out that an aerodynamic control method that is much more effective than the pitch modulation has been studied and utilized during entries for many years. During aerocapture, it is desirable to have a large range of lift coefficients available, while keeping the vehicle's ballistic coefficients constant. This is accomplished by modulating the vehicle's bank angle, i.e., by rolling the vehicle about its velocity vector. By this method, the angle of attack can be held constant (at the trim angle, if desired), and the C(sub D) and the ballistic coefficient remain constant. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force vector (essentially the lift) can be varied over its entire range, from maximum positive to maximum negative values. Reaction controls, rather than aerodynamic ones, are usually utilized to change the bank angle of the vehicle, thus requiring the use of fuel. However, the fuel expenditure that is required to change the bank angle is far less than the amount that would have to be used to continuously hold the vehicle at pitch angles that differ significantly from its trim angle of attack. Also, it has been shown that bank angle modulation to vary the lift can enlarge the entry corridor by increasing the entry angle for the undershoot boundary, where both the heating rate and deceleration reach a maximum. Finally, the crew's deceleration tolerance can be increased somewhat when the bank angle is varied, as opposed to the pitch angle. For bank modulation, the deceleration force vector can be kept at a constant angle with respect to the occupants whose tolerance to g loads is highest when the force is applied in a direction normal to the upper torso. The advantages of bank angle variation to modulate the lift vector were recognized long ago, and this method of control was used successfully on the Apollo command module during lunar return' and, more recently, for the Space Shuttle Orbiter.

Tauber, Michael E.↗