Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Early Artemis”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Penetrator Science Objectives for the Moon and Artemis

Some key decadal-scale mission goals at the Moon have been proposed, these include sample return, the establishment of a lunar geophysical network, and exploring extreme environments, such as the permanently shadowed regions at the lunar poles. These environments present accessibility challenges, though contain significant rewards for science return. Small penetrator experiments have great potential for precursor and survey missions for the exploration of these environments, producing early science data and later mission planning. Penetrators have been conceptualized for planetary exploration for several decades but have yet to be operated successfully. Penetrators are designed to be self-contained vehicles with a suite of instruments de-signed to survive and function after achieving certain depth into the regolith using the kinetic energy of impact, or designed to measure mechanical (or compositional) properties as part of a much larger vehicle.

C. J. Ahrens↗
NASA NTRS2025

South Pole Lunar Lighting Studies for Driving Exploration on the Lunar Surface

NASA’s Artemis lunar missions will face new exploration challenges due to inherently low sun angles in the lunar south pole region. Whereas the Apollo missions were afforded sunlight for approximately 8 to 50-degrees above the horizon, sunlight for the next lunar missions will only be 1 to 2-degrees about the horizon. With this low angle, long shadows and high contrasts of light and dark areas will be faced by the crew and remote teleop operators while exploring the lunar surface. With this in mind, NASA developed an integrated virtual Lighting and Navigation Simulation to understand these challenges. Two studies have been conducted in this Lunar South Pole environment to evaluate the effects of natural and artificial lighting on driving and navigating a lunar rover across the surface. Early NASA studies, such as this, are used to aid in developing techniques and explore concepts of operations to promote mission success and crew safety. In the Phase One development evaluation, six astronauts were teleported to ten different lighting conditions. For each location, drivers were to drive to an imaginary target approximately 200-meters straight ahead and provide subjective feedback on their ability to drive under the given lighting conditions. Phase Two, a more operational study, four astronauts and a remote operator tested five different Artemis lunar mission scenarios. Results indicated sun direction at such low angles, especially when driving a high speed, can severely impact the crew’s ability to safely drive the rover. In the up-sun situation, with the sun directly in the driver’s eyes and compounded long shadows, the consistent preference among drivers was to initiate a tacking strategy of approximately +/- 20 to 30-degrees to improve visibility. This maneuver does require more time and rover energetics. Conversely, driving down-sun required the crew to tack as well to avoid the shadow of rover blocking the terrain. Less appreciated is how the surrounding landscape is lit. Traveling into shadowed areas, especially while facing a lit terrain beyond the shadowed area, drivers enter at their own risk due to pupil contraction making artificial lights useless. Additionally, the constant transitioning between dark and light areas are mentally taxing to the crew and natural navigational references such as the stars are invisible and therefore unusable. Slope and depth magnitude are very difficult hazards to judge when approaching a shadowed crater. This naturally leads to slower driving speeds than originally anticipated. As for observing scientifically interesting features, assessing them accurately varies greatly by the lighting condition. In most cases, the task can be completed, but the strategy is to use the sun to one’s advantage. Crew workload distribution in the cockpit for driving operations was split amongst crew. The driver primarily focused attention on visual terrain (80%) but referenced displays approximately 20% of the time, while the co-pilot/navigator generally provided directional cues to the driver. These natural lighting conditions present significant challenges for safe rover operations; however, early studies having given investigators a “first-look” into understanding of how operating on the South Lunar Pole can be accomplished.

LTv↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing Utility of Different Orbits for a Lunar PNT Constellation

"As the Artemis program establishes a long-term presence on the lunar surface, lunar surface users will need an accurate source of Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). Under the LunaNet framework, NASA has proposed the Lunar Navigation System (LNS), a constellation of satellites in lunar orbit which will broadcast LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal (AFS) [1] to the lunar surface. LNS will have the objective of providing user position accuracies of 10 m and timing accuracies of 10 microseconds on the lunar surface and up to 200 km above the surface. Several classes of orbits are possibilities for the LNS constellation, including circular orbits, eccentric orbits, and various families of 3-body orbits. Each of these orbit classes have both advantages and disadvantages in their utility as PNT constellations. In this study we examine a wide variety of potential LNS constellations and evaluate their performance against several metrics, including: a. Dilution of Precision (DOP) performance over the lunar service volume and the South Pole region, during both the constellation buildup and after the constellation is completed. b. Number of satellites required to achieve required DOP performance. c. Relative dynamics of LNS satellites with respect to surface users. d. Signal in space error (SISE) performance, assuming orbit determination that includes the Global Positioning System (GPS), crosslinks, and monitor sites on the surface of the moon. e. Constellation insertion, station keeping, and disposal costs. f. Specific Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and engineering challenges associated with establishing and operating the constellations. (E.g., frequent station keeping, variable signal strength, divergent CONOPS for different planes of the constellation.) The system’s performance is considered both independently and in combination with other proposed systems, such as NASA’s Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation System (LCRNS) and ESA’s Moonlight constellation. The study concludes that a 3-plane Walker constellation at 6 lunar radii (slightly higher than GPS’s 4.2 earth radii from a geometry perspective, but significantly closer in an absolute sense) is a good candidate for the LNS constellation, providing the user with good SISE and DOP performance, while not requiring excessive station keeping or complex CONOPS. However, other viable concepts exist and could be chosen if early South Pole coverage is a driving factor in the system design."

navigation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VIPER: Systems Integration Status

NASA’s Artemis Program plans to return humans to the Moon for an extended stay. To do so will require substantial resources to sustain that continued human presence, including continuous supplies delivered from the Earth. Given the expense and complexity of resource deliveries from Earth, if some resources were indigenously available, substantial logistical savings could be available by “living off the land”, wherever possible. The LCROSS[1] , LRO and other missions have confirmed the presence of resources such as water-ice and other volatiles in lunar polar regions, so the next step is to understand the scientific nature and physical distribution of those candidate resources. Those local volatiles could be processed into propellants and human life-supporting needs, reducing risk of maintaining a permanent human presence on the Moon. The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Resource (VIPER) is a surface mobility scientific platform, designed to spend ~100 days mapping and surveying four different Ice Stability Regions to understand the scientific nature and distribution of water and other volatiles. VIPER will also provide scientific mineralogical context of the lunar regolith, such as the presence of silicon and light metals in lunar regolith, providing a composite picture of resource availability and sustainment. This paper will discuss the latest systems-level integration activities by the VIPER team, following our initial introduction to this mission at IAC2021[2] . The VIPER team successfully passed its Systems Integration Review (SIR) in late-2022, and in early 2023, began system-level surface segment (rover) flight hardware assembly. VIPER is managed within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), utilizing the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lunar delivery model with partner, Astrobotic, Inc.

VIPER↗
NASA NTRS2020

Space Launch System Mobile Launcher Modal Pretest Analysis

NASA is developing an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle capability, the Space Launch System, to support lunar and deep space exploration. To support this capability, an updated ground infrastructure is required including modifying an existing Mobile Launcher system. The Mobile Launcher is a very large heavy beam/truss steel structure designed to support the Space Launch System during its buildup and integration in the Vehicle Assembly Building, transportation from the Vehicle Assembly Building out to the launch pad, and provides the launch platform at the launch pad. The previous Saturn/Apollo and Space Shuttle programs had integrated vehicle ground vibration tests of their integrated launch vehicles performed with simulated free-free boundary conditions to experimentally anchor and validate structural and flight controls analysis models. For the Space Launch System program, the Mobile Launcher will be used as the modal test fixture for the ground vibration test of the first Space Launch System flight vehicle, Exploration Mission ? 1( now referred to as Artemis 1), programmatically referred to as the Integrated vehicle modal test. The Integrated vehicle modal test of the Exploration Mission - 1 integrated launch vehicle will have its core and second stages unfueled while mounted to the ML while inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, which is currently scheduled for the late spring or early summer of 2020. The Space Launch System program has implemented a building block approach for dynamic model validation. The modal test of the Mobile Launcher is an important part of this building block approach in supporting the integrated vehicle modal test since the Mobile Launcher will serve as a structurally dynamic test fixture whose modes will couple with the modes of the Exploration Mission ? 1 test vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test will further support understanding the structural dynamics of the Mobile Launcher and SLS during rollout to the launch pad, which will play a key role in better understanding and prediction of the rollout forces acting on the launch vehicle. The Mobile Launcher modal test is currently scheduled for the summer of 2019. Due to a very tight modal testing schedule, this Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis has been performed to ensure there is a high likelihood of being able to successfully complete the modal test (i.e. identify the primary target modes) using the planned instrumentation, shakers, and excitation types. This paper will discuss this Mobile Launcher modal pretest analysis and the unique challenges faced due to the Mobile Launcher's size and weight, which are typically not faced when modal testing aerospace structures.

Akers, James C.↗
NASA NTRS2020

NASA's Geoscience Training Program for Astronauts

Geoscientists have been training and preparing astronauts to observe the Earth from space and explore other planetary surfaces with a legacy that reaches back to the early days of the space program. Continuing this legacy and critical function, a core NASA team has been closely coordinating with the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) as well as academic, institute, and other governmental partners to conduct a comprehensive geoscience training program that ranges from initial astronaut candidate training to preparing crew for Artemis missions. Described below are the three program training phases, along with recent program highlights and forward planning.

Graff, T. G.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Thermal Sensitivity Study of Lunar Terrain Vehicle Wheels

Since the early development of lunar vehicles for the Apollo program, designing a wheel capable of functioning in the harsh equatorial lunar environment was identified as a uniquely difficult engineering challenge. The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) must contend with many of the same challenges encountered during the Apollo missions, but with the addition of colder, more complex thermal environments at the lunar south pole and longer Artemis mission timelines. A full thermal assessment of LTV wheels should capture these and other details to assess heat leak through the wheels and extreme hot and cold temperatures. The goals of this study are to provide bounding lunar south pole thermal environments; to define sensitivity to interactions between the wheel and the lunar surface in different operation modes, such as parked and traversing; and to identify thermal performance concerns related to the use of shape memory alloys.

Lunar Terrain Vehicle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis program established the goal to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, but that is only the beginning of the program. Artemis plans to move towards a sustainable phase, with four crew living on the lunar surface for roughly 30-day annual missions, operating from a Pressurized Rover (PR) and a Surface Habitat (SH). The crew will split up – two living and operating from the PR and the others in the SH, perhaps swapping places halfway through the surface mission. There is a significant degree of maturity surrounding PR operations due to the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies field tests from 2007-2011. However, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding activity in the SH, with anecdotal speculation among some Artemis lunar surface engineers that the SH crew might not be fully utilized. Contrary to this belief, there is evidence in US human spaceflight history that the SH crew may instead be extremely busy. In particular, portions of the STS-94 Microgravity Science Lab mission demonstrate a science-based use case for crew activity in the SH. Fifteen Spacelab missions (not including STS-83, which was terminated early due to a fuel cell problem and reflown as STS-94) and eight Spacehab missions used the previously mentioned modules as science labs to expand the science capability of shuttle orbital missions, most flown prior to the assembly of the International Space Station. STS-94 is selected as an example of these flights. STS-94 was a 15.7-day mission with a 7-person crew. The crew operated in split 12-hour shifts, enabling 24-hour science operations. STS-94 used the space shuttle Columbia with the Spacelab module and Extended Duration Orbiter pallet in the cargo bay. The STS-94 physical science investigations were intended to explore various physical aspects of microgravity. These same investigations can be conducted on the Moon to explore 1/6 gravity. The Spacelab module was outfitted with several key facilities to enable this research: Large Isothermal Furnace, Combustion Module-1, Droplet Combustion Experiment, EXPRESS Rack, TEMPUS, Gravity Measurement Devices, and Middeck Glovebox. The current reference concept for the SH is a hybrid inflatable in a vertical orientation. Fairly typical of hybrid inflatables, the SH has an aluminum core pressurized section and a larger inflatable volume, in this case attaching to the top of the core. Two crew will live in the SH at a time, though four can briefly occupy the habitat, such as for contingency or handover activities. This paper will discuss use of the STS-94 physical science equipment in the SH and options for the architectural layout of a resulting physics laboratory. It will also discuss how this laboratory may accompany other science facilities such as biology, human research, and geology. The person hours used by the STS-94 crew to conduct physical science research will be estimated and then mapped to a two-person SH crew, making it possible to determine how many days are required in the SH to complete the lunar gravity physical science investigations at varying levels of crew availability.

STS-94↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISRU Potential Water Mine Sites; Preliminary Evaluation for NASA Artemis Campaign

The NASA Artemis Campaign aims to return to the Moon to maintain a sustainable presence [1], and In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)is a key part of sustainability. The regions of interest for the Artemis campaign, as outlined in [1] and shown in Fig 1, are at Lunar the South Pole where water ice has been identified. The potential use of this water, and oxygen/hydrogen, for NASA and commercial applications such as refueling vehicles and power systems, and supplying life support consumables is one of the considerations the NASA Artemis team is using to evaluate these regions. As such, analyses are underway to evaluate the ISRU ice mining potential of these regions of interest. To do so, a set of ground rules for ISRU sites have been developed to align with current assumptions for customer needs, hardware capabilities, initially limited infrastructure, and lunar environments/terrain. The customer could be a lander, habitat, or other asset that makes use of ISRU product within the Artemis architecture. At this time, four of the regions of influence (the ‘western’ cluster in Fig. 1) have undergone preliminary ISRU evaluation. It should be noted that variety of other efforts have done similar evaluations of this nature with different assumptions or viewpoints, such as the most recent[2]. However, most evaluations focus on large permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) and craters due to orbital data resolution limitations, whereas early ice mining operations will likely occur in much smaller PSRs

In situ resource utilization↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Lunar Geophysical Mission Opportunities Including the Lunar Geophysical Network, Artemis and CLPS

In the next few years, several opportunities are underway to take new geophysical observations of the Moon including geodetic and seismic. NASA’s novel Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program seeks to acquire delivery services from 14 US companies. Nine funded task orders have been selected with payloads from multiple disciplines. Here we review the upcoming geophysical CLPS payloads and their measurement objectives then we provide a review of the Lunar Geophysical Network mission in development for New Frontiers 5. The Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) mission is proposed to land on the Moon in the early 2030’s and deploy packages at four locations to enable continuous geophysical measurements for a minimum of 6 and a goal of 10 years. Returning to the lunar surface with a long-lived geophysical network is a key next step to advance lunar and planetary science. LGN will greatly expand our primarily Apollo-based knowledge of the deep lunar interior by identifying and characterizing mantle melt layers, as well as core size and state. To meet the mission objectives, the instrument suite provides complementary seismic, geodetic, heat flow, and electromagnetic (EM) observations. We discuss the network landing site requirements and provide example sites that meet these requirements. Landing sites include the P-5 region within the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT; (lat:15˚; lon:-35˚), Schickard basin (lat:-44.3˚; lon:-55.1˚), Crisium basin (lat:18.5˚; lon:61.8˚), and the farside Korolev basin (lat:-2.4˚; lon:-159.3˚) (Figure 1). Network optimization considers the best locations to observe seismic core phases, e.g., ScS and PKP. Ray path density and proximity to young fault scarps are also analyzed to provide increased opportunities for seismic observations. Geodetic constraints from laser ranging require the LGN to have at least three nearside stations at maximum limb distances. Heat flow and EM measurements should be obtained away from terrane boundaries and from magnetic anomalies at locations representative of global trends. In our recent paper, an in-depth case study is provided for Mare Crisium. We also discuss the consequences for scientific return of less-than-optimal locations or number of stations.

Moons↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

BioSentinel: Forging the path for Deep Space CubeSat Missions

The BioSentinel mission was launched in 2022 aboard the SLS launch vehicle as part of the Artemis-I campaign and continues mission operations into 2024. The 6U CubeSat has been characterizing deep space radiation at large distances from Earth. This presentation gives a status of the mission performance to date, as well as some of the lessons learned from project. BioSentinel has achieved unprecedented performance as an SLS secondary payload due to preparation, planning, and a robust design. Pre-launch antenna and interface testing with both DSN and ESA confirmed command and data pathways and allowed for operational flexibility in the critical early hours post-deployment. Mission Operations simulations prior to launch identified potential risks and trained operators to respond in flight, preparing the team to react quickly and successfully to detumble the spacecraft and enter a power-positive state. The spacecraft would not have survived without the inclusion of the trailblazing 3D-printed composite cold gas propulsion system. The non-standard tank geometry enabled efficient use of the limited space available in the CubeSat form factor as well as the capability to detumble the spacecraft and manage momentum for extended mission durations, while providing sufficient margin to execute potential delta-V maneuvers. Following the conclusion of the primary science mission, the Linear Energy Transfer (LET) Spectrometer has continued to collect solar and galactic radiation data from its unique location in heliocentric orbit. The free space dataset offered by the BioSentinel LET is a valuable source of data for both model validation and future mission planning. As the spacecraft travels farther from Earth it is poised to provide longitudinally distributed measurements of solar particle events during solar maximum. NASA Ames led development of the BioSentinel spacecraft to operate for long durations in deep space. The novel subsystems and COTS components that comprise the BioSentinel bus can serve as a template for future deep space missions, while the lessons the team has learned from well over a year of continuous operations will enable improved performance in the generation of deep space CubeSat missions.

BioSentinel↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Characterizing the Risk: Review of Sensorimotor Evidence and Research Roadmap

BACKGROUND: NASA’s Artemis program will take astronauts back to the lunar surface for the first time in almost 50 years. Despite the successes of the previous Apollo program, the Artemis missions will differ in duration, vehicle characteristics, and landing tasks that may exacerbate the risks to crew health/safety and mission objectives. NASA’s Human Research Program identifies the risk of altered sensorimotor/vestibular function impacting critical mission tasks as one of the top priority risks to lunar exploration missions. This session will review the existing evidence and remaining gaps in knowledge for the sensorimotor risk. DESCRIPTION: Alterations in sensorimotor processing during spaceflight can lead to motion sickness, spatial disorientation, and decrements in postural control, locomotion, and fine motor control during and following gravity-transitions. The risk of impairment is greatest during and soon after gravity-transitions, when performance decrements may have high operational impacts (e.g., manual landings, immediate egress following landing, and early extravehicular activities (EVAs)). Recent studies have specifically improved the risk characterization of changes in perception, motion sickness, postural and locomotor control, manual control, and fine-motor coordination. However, given the difficulty in obtaining measurements during and soon after gravity-transitions, evidence for initial decrements immediately following gravity-transitions remains limited. The most significant gaps in the risk include manual control ability around gravity-transitions, the incidence and severity of motion sickness during landings, and the ability to perform egress/EVAs soon after gravity-transition. To address these gaps, current research roadmaps leverage both spaceflight studies and ground-based analogs for risk characterization and countermeasure development/validation. DISCUSSION: This panel will further describe the current sensorimotor research strategies with an emphasis on the operational scenarios of manual control, crew egress, and EVA. The goal of this research is to accommodate the needs of the crew and facilitate human capabilities to ensure lunar mission success. This work will prepare NASA for successful Artemis missions and enable the next giant leap, the exploration of Mars.

Timothy Ryan Macaulay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Long -Term Architecture Development For The Moon And M

Developing an enterprise-level architecture encompassing future human-robotic science and exploration at the Moon and Mars requires a visionary approach that ensures NASA is responsive to national priorities and global science and technology advancement objectives. While the initial capabilities needed to return humans to the Moon may be well understood, NASA is still formulating a long-term infrastructure at the Moon and working to narrow the trade space for the first human missions to Mars. This paper will focus on the formulation and current status of engineering and design applications for a long-term and robust lunar architecture that will implement the Artemis Base Camp concept, including pre-formulation activities and elements currently in formulation. Authors will demonstrate how the Moon-to-Mars campaign approach fosters commonality of requirements and standards across individual mission elements, as well as multi-destination systems and operations, to reduce risk and encourage healthy competition in the growing space market. Among the Artemis Base Camp elements discussed will be multiple surface mobility elements, a fixed, anchoring surface habitat, fission surface power, and an in-situ resource development pilot plant. The narrative will clearly illustrate the direct evolution of the base camp elements to a minimal Mars architecture concept, and also outline unique development efforts that will be required in the next decade to make it possible to send humans to the Red Planet as early as the 2030s.

Greg Chavers↗
NASA NTRS2014

Affordable Exploration of Mars: Recommendations from a Community Workshop

There is a growing opinion that within two decades initial human missions to Mars are affordable under plausible budget scenarios, with sustained international participation, and --- especially --- without requiring those first missions to achieve a burdensome number of goals. In response to this view, a group of experts from the Mars exploration stakeholder communities attended the "Affording Mars" workshop at George Washington University in December 2013. Participants reviewed scenarios for proposed affordable and sustainable human and robotic exploration of Mars, the role of the International Space Station as the essential early step toward humans to Mars, possible "bridge" or "transition" missions in the 2020s, key capabilities required for affordable initial missions, international partnerships, and usable definitions of affordability and sustainability. We report here the findings, observations, and recommendations that were agreed to at that workshop. In the context of affordable early missions to Mars, we also discuss the recent report of the National Research Council on human space flight and a pair of recent scenarios that appear to promise reduced costs.

Perform an analysis elaborating↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis Deep Space Habitation: Enabling a Sustained Human Presence on the Moon and Beyond

As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, so too does its roadmap toward a sustained crewed presence on the surface of the Moon and eventual human missions to Mars. The first launch of the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, the contract award for the first demonstrations of a Human Landing System, and the beginning of construction on the initial elements of the lunar Gateway have marked major milestones toward NASA’s near-term exploration goals: a long-duration outpost in orbit around the Moon and the next footsteps on the lunar surface. At the same time, NASA is in the early phases of planning the capabilities that will be needed for long-term exploration. Among the common elements that will be required by long-duration stays on the lunar surface, transit to Mars, and Martian surface expeditions will be new habitats unlike any flown to date. NASA is currently working on development of both architectures for those habitats and on the technological advancements that will enable them, with an eye toward systems that will not only extend mission operations but also provide for living quarters that will keep the crew happy and healthy throughout their expeditions. Beyond the Gateway habitation needs, these capabilities will need to be defined and advanced to support the initial lunar surface missions and to prepare for human missions to the Mars system. The Surface Habitat is the current concept in consideration to serve as this initial surface habitat that will extend the crew mission durations. It will provide 30-to-60-day habitability for a crew of up to four allowing for the astronauts to explore farther and longer on each visit to the lunar surface. NASA is also currently reviewing opportunities to use current or near-term in-space habitation systems as proving grounds or precursors for keeping astronauts safe and healthy during future transits to Mars. Already, the International Space Station (ISS) is being used for implementation of next-generation life-support systems that will inform those used in exploration habitats, and the operations approach for ISS is providing lessons-learned for future science operations around or on the Moon.1U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright While a suite of habitation concepts is currently under study within NASA, the agency is also working closely with U.S. industry through the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) activity to understand their concepts for commercially provided habitation capabilities as well as close coordination with international partners to understand their desires for in-space and surface habitation. This paper will provide a status of these concepts and partnership activities as well as potential future technology and architecture development paths.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

BioSentinel: Leading the Way for Deep Space CubeSat Missions

Flagship science missions are not alone in Deep Space thanks to BioSentinel, a 6U spacecraft launched on Artemis-1. BioSentinel is one of the longest operating CubeSats beyond cislunar space. The subsystems and COTS components of the BioSentinel bus are a template for future deep space missions, and the lessons learned from over a year of operations will enable improved performance for the next missions. BioSentinel achieved its unprecedented performance for an SLS secondary payload due to preparation, planning, and a robust design. Pre-launch antenna and interface testing with both DSN and ESA confirmed command and data pathways and allowed for operational flexibility in the critical early hours post-deployment. Mission Operations simulations prior to launch identified potential risks and primed operators to respond in flight, preparing the team to react quickly to successfully detumble the spacecraft and enter a power-positive state. The spacecraft would not have survived without the inclusion of the trailblazing 3D-printed composite cold gas propulsion system. The non-standard tank geometry enabled efficient use of the limited space available in the CubeSat, as well as the capability to detumble the spacecraft and manage momentum, while providing sufficient margin to execute potential delta-V maneuvers. The Iris radio has operated for over 18 months with no significant issues. Initial Iris performance estimates have been accurate throughout the mission. BioSentinel continues to collect data on thermal conditions and to validate our performance models with real-world knowledge. We have received exemplary support from our DSN partners. Following the conclusion of the primary science mission, the Linear Energy Transfer (LET) Spectrometer continued to collect solar and galactic radiation data from its location in heliocentric orbit. The free space dataset offered by the BioSentinel LET is a valuable source of data for model validation and future mission planning. As the spacecraft travels farther from Earth it is poised to provide longitudinally distributed measurements of solar particle events during solar maximum. The lessons learned from BioSentinel suggest key areas to enhance performance. The ability to upload modified flight software can increase the stability of memory management. Additional heaters in the propulsion system design have already proven successful on the Starling mission. Streamlining mission operations can reduce costs, increase data return, and better utilize DSN time. Enhancements such as these will facilitate reliable, long-duration deep space exploration using the proven BioSentinel 6U CubeSat bus.

BioSentinel↗
NASA NTRS2024

Development Testing and Analysis of the Integrated Gateway-ESPRIT Bipropellant Refuelling System

The Gateway will be humanity’s first space station orbiting the Moon completed by NASA in partnership with ESA and other US and international partners. The Gateway will provide critical support to sustainable human exploration on the moon through the Artemis program. To enable the Lunar Gateway to complete its mission, on orbit refuelling is essential. The ESPRIT Refuelling Module (ERM) will provide the capability to transfer propellants, MMH and MON-3, through the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) to the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE). The transfer of these propellants carries known risks and hazards. These hazards include overpressure of the propellant lines during priming sequences between modules and during refuelling pause operations. To support the early system development and to mitigate these risks, a collaborative test program between NASA, ESA and Thales Alenia Space was completed at the Thales Alenia Space test facility in Harwell, UK. This test program integrated fluidic breadboards of the ERM, HALO and PPE modules. The objectives of the test program were to demonstrate and characterise critical performance and transient operations, inform refuelling concept of operations and to calibrate and validate numerical models of the refuelling subsystem in EcosimPro. To support the completion of this final objective a detailed model of the integrated breadboard was developed in EcosimPro and key steady-state and transient test cases were simulated. As an industry first, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) database correlation for Hydrofluoroether (HFE-7000) was used as a mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON-3) simulant with EcosimPro and European Space Propulsion System Simulation (ESPSS) libraries to result in a more accurate analysis for transient phenomenon such as priming. The test and simulation data showed good agreement validating the model for further system analysis as the ERM design progresses.

Refuelling↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections

INTRODUCTION: On the International Space Station (ISS), exercise feedback from astronauts is very important to diagnose and mitigate any form-related injuries and ensure efficacious exercise prescriptions and systems. Going forward, exploration exercise efforts seek to gain further quantitative data of human and system performance. Currently, methods of collecting in-flight exercise data on the ISS are limited to marker-based motion capture (MoCap) where astronauts must wear reflective markers over their clothes and specialized cameras are used. The main objective of this work was to investigate the following alternative tracking options: markerless video-based MoCap and inertial measurement units (IMUs). These were compared against traditional marker-based MoCap to evaluate kinematic accuracy and inform feasible methods for future exercise data collections on the ISS, especially in support of future Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system development. METHODS: Three test subjects performed a variety of flight-like resistance and aerobic exercises using the Miniature Exercise Device (MED-2), Concept-2 rowing ergometer, barbell mockup, bench (e.g., for bench press, hip thruster, and cycling), and a custom structure for dips. These were intended also to represent exercises which could be performed on the multi-modality European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) [1]. The marker-based MoCap data, collected through a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system, was regarded as the gold standard to compare the data against. Passive markers were affixed to each subject according to a modified full body Plug-in Gait marker set [2] with 46 total markers. The markerless MoCap data was collected using two GoPro Hero7 cameras and one GoPro Hero11 camera. For the IMU data, a full body set of 17 Xsens DOTs were placed on the subject: 10 upper body and 7 lower body IMUs. Biomechanical modeling and evaluation was conducted through OpenSim [3] (MoCap), OpenSense [4] (IMU), OpenCap [5] (markerless), ENABLE [6] (markerless), and other modeling software. Secondary objectives included comparing the volume of equipment, reducing mass and crew set-up time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While there were issues with initial processing for the IMUs and markerless MoCap, the results aided in the understanding of each sensor, developing end-to-end processes, and identifying future needs. Some observed concerns with the markerless MoCap approaches included being cognizant of a cluttered background, number of people in field of view, camera number and placement. Some challenges with the IMUs included possible sliding, early deactivation possibly due to exercise pose, and large quantity sensor synchronization. Overall, the markerless MoCap option may be the preferred method of data collection and processing as it provides a solution for certain IMU shortcomings and may be least in equipment volume, upmass, and crew setup time. CONCLUSIONS: While this work was mainly focused on ISS data collection, these sensor data along with continued evaluation and development efforts will help to establish best methods for exercise data collection on Gateway, for other Artemis missions, and beyond. Details on the latest end-to-end processing of the data and results will be presented, along with lessons learned and recommended sensor selection and methods.

S. Faragalla↗