Upgrades to LandIR for Artemis Human Landing System Appendix P
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Matthew K Chamberlain↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Human Landing System”
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.
Recent Activities of the Marshall Space Flight Center Natural Environments Branch Terrestrial & Planetary Environments Team
- The Natural Environments (NE) Branch is within the MSFC Engineering Directorate’s Spacecraft and Vehicle System (S&VS) Department - S&VS plans, performs and directs the technical Design, Analysis, Test, Evaluation, Verification, Integration, and Applied Research and Development of future Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Systems - Current programs we support - Space Launch System, Human Landing System, Mars Ascent Vehicle, Orion, Gateway - NE maintains expertise in terrestrial, space, and planetary natural environments definition, characterization, and analysis - Responsibility to disseminate this expertise to Agency programs and projects in support of environment definition, requirements development, vehicle development, operations, and sustaining engineering through program’s life cycle - Branch has two teams; Terrestrial and Planetary Environments (T&PE) and Space Environments (SE) - T&PE has extensive expertise characterizing terrestrial surface and atmospheric (aloft) environments - Winds, temperature, humidity, pressure, lightning, density, precipitation, radiant energy, aerosols, sea state, sea surface temperature - Maintains climatological databases for engineering analyses
Ryan K. Decker↗
Enterprise Mission Integration for Artemis Lunar Missions
Mission integration is an iterative process by which a specific mission is formulated, refined, planned, and executed within the established vehicle(s), architecture, and ground systems design. Mission integration includes the people, vehicle(s) and ground hardware/software, products, processes, analyses, schedules, facilities, Certification of Flight Readiness, etc. The Artemis Mission Integration Task Team (MITT) developed a series of products and processes to support the complex mission integration across various Programs within the Artemis Mission Campaign (Orion, Space Launch Systems, Exploration Ground Systems, Gateway, Human Landing System, and Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility). The Moon to Mars (M2M) Program is referred to as ‘the enterprise’ as it includes both the M2M organization and the Programs supporting the Artemis Mission Campaign. Artemis Mission Integration has five phases: mission capability, mission definition, mission preparation, mission execution, and post-mission assessment. This paper focuses on one of the enterprise-level mission checkpoints as a kick-off to the Mission Preparation phase, the Mission Integration Review (MIR), which occurs 18-24 months prior to launch. The MIR helps to confirm the defined mission technical baseline is within the existing analyzed design envelope. Details are provided on the identification of dependencies, issues, or gaps for mission-specific objectives and requirements, as well as the definition of the analysis, training, mission execution products, facilities, and detailed supporting operations requirements. The MIR was held for both Artemis I and II and this paper aims to share with the aerospace community its value as we prepare for upcoming Artemis Missions.
Mary Anne Plaza↗
Apollo to Artemis: Mining 50-Year Old Records to Inform Future Human Lunar Landing Systems
Under the Artemis lunar exploration program, NASA is committed to landing American astronauts on the moon by 2024. While NASA’s new Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule will carry astronauts from Earth to the Gateway, the human lunar landing system has not yet been fully defined. As in the Apollo program, there are concerns for vehicle weight and internal volume such that seats may not be desirable, and standing during lunar descent and ascent may be a preferred engineering solution. With such a design, astronauts will experience +GZ (head-to-foot) accelerations during capsule accelerations, and it is unclear whether spaceflight deconditioned astronauts can tolerate these. Apollo astronauts stood during lunar descent and ascent, and the data contained in the early program records for those missions represent a unique resource that may provide insights to the cardiovascular stress associated with this human landing system design.
Petersen, D.↗
NASA's Human Lunar Landing Strategy
In early 2020, NASA's Human Landing System Program made awards to a set of American companies to compete for the design, delivery and demonstration of an integrated human landing system to land the next Americans near the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Awards were made utilizing the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement procurement mechanism and kicked off a seven-month Certification Baseline Review, leading up to a Continuation Review and possible down-select by NASA at the end of 2020. This paper discusses the work that has been done thus far for the rapid development of a human landing system to safely carry the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. It will also provide a preview of the work that remains ahead for the program. Keywords: Artemis, Human Landing System, Mars, Moon, Propulsion
Lisa Watson-Morgan↗
Crew Office Evaluation of a Precision Lunar Landing System
A representative Human System Interface for a precision lunar landing system, ALHAT, has been developed as a platform for prototype visualization and interaction concepts. This facilitates analysis of crew interaction with advanced sensors and AGNC systems. Human-in-the-loop evaluations with representatives from the Crew Office (i.e. astronauts) and Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) were performed to refine the crew role and information requirements during the final phases of landing. The results include a number of lessons learned from Shuttle that are applicable to the design of a human supervisory landing system and cockpit. Overall, the results provide a first order analysis of the tasks the crew will perform during lunar landing, an architecture for the Human System Interface based on these tasks, as well as details on the information needs to land safely.
Major, Laura M.↗
A Crew Seat for Human Exploration in Multiple Gravity Environments
This work attempts to develop a single crew seating solution that is applicable across a range of gravity environments encountered by spacecraft proposed in several conceptual spacecraft architectures. All of these spacecraft will need to provide some sort of stationary accommodation for the crew for performing various activities such as work in science laboratories, maintenance and repair facilities, medical care facilities, and spacecraft operations centers, as well as for basic habitation in crew quarters, entertainment / relaxation facilities, and crew dining facilities. Depending on the spacecraft or architecture, this stationary accommodation may be experienced continuously in microgravity, such as would be the case for the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. Alternately, it could be in continuous lunar or Martian gravity, such as the Common Habitat base camps. It could experience fractional gravity, such as a Pressurized Rover for In-Space Missions at a Near Earth Asteroid or one of the Martian moons. It could alternate between artificial gravity and microgravity, such as the Nautilus-X. It could alternate between microgravity and lunar or Martian gravity, such as the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System or the Blue Origin Blue Moon Block 2 Human Landing System. Or it could be in continuous Earth gravity, such as ground trainer systems. Prior human spaceflight systems for stationary accommodation have been focused on microgravity applications. These systems have their own limitations and cannot be used in a gravity environment. A public crowdsourcing campaign generated dozens of ideas, which ultimately generated a Gecko Mobility Aids system for crew translation and the Multi-Gravity Crew Seat (MGCS) for stationary accommodation. The MGCS functions in gravity as a traditional terrestrial seat, performing functions of load for the overall body and forearms, as well as head and neck load relief while positioning the body within range of an intended task. In microgravity, the MGCS functions as a body restraint, securing the body against inadvertent drifting by applying a restraining pressure at the front and back of the thighs, shoulders, and back. The initial MGCS concept was developed in a NASA hackathon and was refined through a review of dozens of terrestrial seating styles. Additionally, a review of anthropometry and biomechanics data related to the neutral body posture was conducted to help inform the microgravity configuration of the MGCS. A series of CAD models were iteratively developed, with subject matter expert reviews leading to design improvements. A scale model was constructed and used with a humanoid model to demonstrate MGCS accommodation of a human-like body in both gravity and microgravity modes. Work to develop a full-scale protype of the MGCS is discussed, including design and fabrication of the headrest, arm rest, seat back, seat pan, seat base, and the conversion mechanisms. A 1-g human-in-the-loop evaluation of the prototype assessed the acceptability of performing seated activities in the MGCS, collecting data on the usability, comfort, and ease of ingress/egress. Based on the evaluation results, design modifications needed for reduced gravity testing are documented and initial work is indicated for a reduced gravity test plan.
Restraints and Mobility Aids↗
Key Considerations When Developing Avionics for Safety-Critical Systems
Multiple human spaceflight programs are underway at NASA including Orion, Space Launch System, Gateway, Human Landing System, and EVA and Lunar Surface Mobility programs. Achieving success in these programs requires NASA to collaborate with a variety of commercial partners, including both new spaceflight companies and robotic spaceflight companies pursuing crewed spaceflight for the first time. It is not always clear to these organizations how to show their systems are safe for human spaceflight. This is particularly true for avionics systems, which are responsible for performing some of a crewed spacecraft’s most critical functions. NASA recently published guidance describing how to show the design of an avionic system meets safety requirements for crewed missions.
Safety-Critical Systems↗
Overview of Space Environmental Effects (SEE) Team Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Testing
Electrostatic discharge (ESD) due to the radiation environment encountered during spaceflight missions is a serious risk that must be mitigated by careful testing and design considerations. The MSFC Space Environmental Effects (SEE) Team has world-class facilities for ESD testing along with decades of experience. The Team has recently conducted successful campaigns for several high-profile projects including Europa Clipper, Exploration Upper Stage, Lunar Gateway, Orion, Docking System, and Human Landing System. This presentation will give a brief overview of ESD causes, hazards, test methods and test deliverables.
Peter Bertone↗
Analysis of Alternative Architectures for Cargo Lunar Landers
NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program has been working with commercial partners to develop human-class lunar landers to return the first American woman and next American man to the lunar surface in the mid 2020’s. In an effort to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, NASA’s Artemis program aims to facilitate a sustainable, long-term human presence in cis-lunar space. A component of this will require significant infrastructure to be delivered to the lunar surface. Delivering this infrastructure will require a significant lander capability that has yet to be developed. A thorough understanding of cargo lunar lander architectures is required such that select alternatives can be identified that best support the Artemis program’s objective of sustainability. The goal of this study is to aid NASA and its partners in the understanding of the cargo lunar lander trades space, as well as identify potential robust alternatives. The results will support NASA as it moves forward with key activities such as requirements formulation, agency strategic planning, and potential cargo lunar lander procurements. The study builds off of recent work performed by the Human Landing System program’s Architecture and Systems Analysis group to encompass a broad trade space of cargo lunar lander architecture alternatives. The current trade space as depicted by the morphological matrix and mission graph in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, includes key alternative options that have become highly relevant due to current HLS activities and include on-orbit refueling, active cryogenic fluid management, Earth orbit aggregation, and global lunar access. The authors believe that there is also a statistically relevant impact of lander-payload configuration on the primary structure of the vehicle that could greatly impact alternative selection. Because of this, several conceptual lander-payload configurations will be evaluated to determine the level of impact. The current set of conceptual configurations are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. To aid the conceptual evaluation of these configurations, a catalogue of notional payloads has been developed that represent a wide range of masses and volumes that are expected to be delivered in support of a sustained human lunar presence, including pressurized and unpressurized rovers, surface habitats, power systems, and other support infrastructure. In order to execute this study in a timely fashion, a similar approach to that utilized in a similar 2019 study focused on 2024 human lunar sorties will be employed [1]. The team utilized a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC to evaluate over 600,000 lunar lander architectures over a two month time frame [2]. From this large data set, varying ground rules and assumptions were applied as filters to explore the trade space to identify alternatives which exhibited robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The set of Earth-Moon system Delta-Vs assumed from the 2019 study, shown in Fig. 5, will be repurposed to accelerate model formulation for this effort. Additionally, current efforts in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace System Design Lab will be integrated to provide probabilistic modeling of the cargo lunar lander architectures to aid in identifying robust design alternatives [3]. The approach will help minimize potential impacts due to large levels of uncertainty inherent to pre phase-A conceptual design. By leveraging these past and present studies and partnerships, a highly detailed set of data can be generated in a short time period to aid NASA in the coming years to support the goal of a sustained human lunar presence.
Architectures↗
Human Planetary Landing System (HPLS) Capability Roadmap: Wrap Up
When and how does the full scale system and subsystems need to be qualified & Human-rated for flight? Answer: No later than 29. Full scale AEDL Flight Tests can and should be done at Earth (need to get fast turn around between multiple tests). Do we need a Full Scale Validation Flight Test at Mars? Answer: Not, specifically, but the AEDL community is very uncomfortable with the notion of the very first full scale AEDL being piloted. The full scale unpiloted AEDL advance cargo mission that immediately precedes the human landing could do the trick. What kind of precursor AEDL Flight Tests are needed at Mars? Answer: We need to validate our performance & aerodynamic models by flying a scaled (1/10th?) version of the Full Scale Mission by 22. When and how do we decide on the AEDL system to fly? Answer: No later than 2015 (earlier is harder). We need to do multi-path full scale flight simulations and subscale / component development testing starting ASAP. If we find an AEDL for a landing mass of 40 MT, will this same architecture and technology paradigm extend to landing 80 MT? 120 MT? Is there another break point? Answer: We do not know yet.
Manning, Rob↗
Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) Exploration EVA (xEVA) System Compatibility Standards
Extravehicular Activity (EVA) is a significant capability for Artemis Systems which includes Gateway Program (modules), Human Landing System (HLS) Program (Integrated Lander and Human Class Delivery Lander), Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), Pressurized Rover (PR), Payloads, and any other future lunar surface assets that will be utilized for exploration or science. The EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP) will provide the following: Exploration EVA (xEVA) suits, xEVA tools and crew aids along with vehicle integration/support hardware, LTV, and PR. Being a distributed and dynamic capability (moving components), xEVA System hardware will interface with almost all elements of the Artemis architecture. As such, it is important to document a singular set of EVA compatibility standards at the programmatic level to articulate “how to interface with xEVA suit hardware” and “how to design hardware that EVA crewmembers will access and manipulate.”
Exploration↗
Landing Humans and Human-Class Cargo on the Moon and Mars
For more than a decade, efforts have been ongoing at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, to land humans and large, human-rated cargo on planetary bodies like the Moon and Mars. This work continues today under the Center’s Lander Programs (LP) office. Recognizing MSFC’s heritage, NASA stood up the Human Landing System program at the Center in August 2019 to be responsible for spacecrafts that will land the next American astronauts on the Moon under Artemis. With work well underway for the historic Artemis III mission to land the first woman and first person of color on the lunar surface through the Appendix H Option A contract with SpaceX, LP is focused on the development of landers that will support the Agency’s long-term Artemis efforts at the Moon and NASA’s future at Mars. In March 2022, NASA announced its plan to solicit a second industry provider in addition to SpaceX to develop and demonstrate a lander that meets the program’s extended set of requirements for missions beyond Artemis III. Under the umbrella of Sustaining Lunar Development, these requirements will meet NASA’s needs for recurring, long-term access to the lunar surface, such as accommodating an increased crew size and delivering more mass to the surface. Additionally, NASA plans to leverage crewed lander development activities to procure and certify the design of landers capable of human-class cargo delivery. This paper will examine how the Lander Program office at MSFC is bridging from the initial demonstration phase of development for the Human Landing System program to the Sustaining Lunar Development phase and feeding forward to Mars. The requirements and lines of effort for landing humans and human class cargo will be discussed, as well as near-term and future milestones for the program.
Lemuel Carpenter↗
Digital Prototyping Methods to Enable Product Development Analysis Cycle Compression in Aerospace Systems
Historically, the product development life cycle (spanning from origination of a systems concept to initial delivery or fielding) for large-scale aerospace systems is 10-25 years. Examples of recent programs exhibiting this timeline are the Space Shuttle (13 years), , International Space Station (18 years), NASA Hubble telescope (16 years), USAF F-35 Strike Fighter (22 years), Missile Defense Agency THAAD (21 years), USAF V-22 Osprey (26 years), USAF B-2 Spirt (19 years), US Army RAH-66 Comanche (22 years, cancelled prior to fielding), James Webb Space Telescope (25 years), Space Launch System (10 years). This list illustrates the challenges of developing and fielding a modern integrated multi-disciplinary aerospace system. These development timelines are often preceded by significant research and development programs and followed by multiple increments, blocks, or spirals to reach planned operational capability. In the modern era of aerospace system acquisition, there is significant pressure to reduce system development timelines to meet system objectives and enable competitiveness in the current industry and landscape. Across the aerospace industry, a range of rapid acquisition and prototyping programs are seeking to achieve system development within timelines considerably less than 10 years. Notably, in September of 2019, NASA issued a solicitation for the development and demonstration of a Human Landing System (HLS) to deliver humans to the lunar surface by 2024 (5 years) and for the development and demonstration of a more sustainable HLS by 2026 (7 years). Lengthy product development cycle timelines are a product of multiple factors ranging from programmatic, sociological, technical, and systems engineering issues. New approaches in systems engineering provide new ways to enable these compressed development timelines. These approaches employ expanded application of advanced systems engineering methods and cross-cutting digital tools to accelerate system development, utilizing digital prototyping to connect maturing sub-system or component technologies into system or system-of-systems hardware prototypes. Approaches such as the use of system integrating physics relationships to reduce the number of design analysis cycle iterations and state analysis modeling to reduce necessary software testing (and improving coverage of system execution scenarios) represent steps forward in reducing the engineering time needed to field new systems. In addition to cost, schedule and performance benefits, expanded digital exploration and demonstration reduce risk in live system test and demonstration. This incremental demonstration approach, where digital prototyping and demonstration leads and informs full system test and demonstration, could be more important for space applications because of the increased difficulty of test and demonstration of space systems and architectures. The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at Marshall Space Flight Center merges traditional multi-disciplinary concept definition methods with modern, cross-cutting systems engineering concepts to enable iterative design and analysis of space architectures and systems through coordinated, strategic management of human capital, technical processes, and technology. This paper provides an overview of that approach, including recent examples and a strategic path forward to enabling continued reduction of aerospace system product development life cycles.
Michael D Watson↗
Human Planetary Landing System (HPLS) Capability Roadmap NRC Progress Review
Capability Roadmap Team. Capability Description, Scope and Capability Breakdown Structure. Benefits of the HPLS. Roadmap Process and Approach. Current State-of-the-Art, Assumptions and Key Requirements. Top Level HPLS Roadmap. Capability Presentations by Leads. Mission Drivers Requirements. "AEDL" System Engineering. Communication & Navigation Systems. Hypersonic Systems. Super to Subsonic Decelerator Systems. Terminal Descent and Landing Systems. A Priori In-Situ Mars Observations. AEDL Analysis, Test and Validation Infrastructure. Capability Technical Challenges. Capability Connection Points to other Roadmaps/Crosswalks. Summary of Top Level Capability. Forward Work.
Manning, Rob↗
Aerocapture, Entry, Descent and Landing (AEDL) Human Planetary Landing Systems. Section 10: AEDL Analysis, Test and Validation Infrastructure
Contents include the following: 3 Listing of critical capabilities (knowledge, procedures, training, facilities) and metrics for validating that they are mission ready. Examples of critical capabilities and validation metrics: ground test and simulations. Flight testing to prove capabilities are mission ready. Issues and recommendations.
Arnold, J.↗
NASA's Human Planetary Landing Systems Capability Roadmap Development: General Background and Introduction
General Background and Introduction of Capability Roadmaps Agency Objective. Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule. Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date)
Mueller, Rob↗
Loads and Structural Dynamics Requirements for Spaceflight Hardware
The NASA Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate requires Crewed Space Systems (CSS) to meet the intent of a set of Engineering Technical Authority (TA) documents called out in HEOMD-003, Crewed Deep Space Systems Human Rating Certification Requirements and Standards for NASA Missions. For the Loads and Dynamics technical discipline, the document invoked by the HEOMD-003 is JSC 65829, Loads and Structural Dynamics Requirements for Spaceflight Hardware. JSC 65829 was originally developed for the NASA Commercial Crew Program as an implementation of NASA STD-5002, Load Analyses of Spacecraft and Payloads, for that Program. Since that time, tailored alternatives to JSC 65829 have been produced for the Gateway, Human Landing System, and Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Programs. Experience with those Programs has shown that the reduced set of less-prescriptive requirements in those tailored documents offers an advantage over the set of requirements in JSC 65829 Rev A and is a better fit for the paradigm of NASA procurement of commercially developed systems for crewed spaceflight. Revision B of JSC 65829 has been constructed to align with those tailored documents. The reduction in the number and specificity of requirements is balanced by a new requirement for hardware developers to create and provide a Loads Control Plan which describes how the approaches used to generate design-to loads and dynamic environments and substantiate dynamic model validity satisfy the requirements herein. The Plan will establish an agreement between the hardware developer and the TA for the loads and dynamics discipline and offer an opportunity for reengagement if the Plan changes during development.
Kenneth Schultz↗