Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soyuz spacecraft”

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 NTRS2012

Concepts for a Shroud or Propellant Tank Derived Deep Space Habitat

Long duration human spaceflight missions beyond Low Earth Orbit will require much larger spacecraft than capsules such as the Russian Soyuz or American Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. A concept spacecraft under development is the Deep Space Habitat, with volumes approaching that of space stations such as Skylab, Mir, and the International Space Station. This paper explores several concepts for Deep Space Habitats constructed from a launch vehicle shroud or propellant tank. It also recommends future research using mockups and prototypes to validate the size and crew station capabilities of such a habitat. Keywords: Exploration, space station, lunar outpost, NEA, habitat, long duration, deep space habitat, shroud, propellant tank.

Howard, Robert L.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Satellite-to-satellite system and orbital error estimates

Satellite-to-satellite tracking and orbit computation accuracy is evaluated on the basis of data obtained from near earth spacecraft via the geostationary ATS-6. The near earth spacecraft involved are Apollo-Soyuz, GEOS-3, and NIMBUS-6. In addition ATS-6 is being tracked by a new scheme wherein a single ground transmitter interrogates several ground based transponders via ATS-6 to achieve the precision geostationary orbits essential in satellite-to-satellite orbit computation. Also one way Doppler data is being recorded aboard NIMBUS-6 to determine the position of meteorological platforms. Accuracy assessments associated with the foregoing mission related experiments are discussed.

Schmid, P. E.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Some thoughts on the management of large, complex international space ventures

Management issues relevant to the development and deployment of large international space ventures are discussed with particular attention given to previous experience. Management approaches utilized in the past are labeled as either simple or complex, and signs of efficient management are examined. Simple approaches include those in which experiments and subsystems are developed for integration into spacecraft, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project is given as an example of a simple multinational approach. Complex approaches include those for ESA's Spacelab Project and the Space Station Freedom in which functional interfaces cross agency and political boundaries. It is concluded that individual elements of space programs should be managed by individual participating agencies, and overall configuration control is coordinated by level with a program director acting to manage overall objectives and project interfaces.

Lee, T. J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Intra-Extra Vehicular Activity Apollo Spacesuits

Kenneth Thomas will discuss the Apollo Intra-Extra Vehicular Activity (IEVA) spacesuits, which supported launch and reentry and extra-vehicular activity. This program was NASA's first attempt to develop a new suit design from requirements and concepts. Mr. Thomas will chronicle the challenges, developments, struggles, and solutions that culminated in the system that allowed the first human exploration of the Moon and deep space (outside low-Earth orbit). Apollo pressure suit designs allowed the heroic repair of the Skylab space station and supported the first U.S. and Russian spacecraft docking during the Apollo Soyuz Test Project. Mr. Thomas will also discuss the IEVA suits' successes and challenges associated with the IEVA developments of the 1960s.

Thomas, Kenneth S.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Early results of the ionospheric experiment of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

A description is presented of a spacecraft-to-spacecraft Doppler-tracking experiment which was performed by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory on the occasion of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). The experiment involved the measurement of the relative velocity between the ASTP docking module and the Apollo command service module by a Doppler-tracking method. The objectives of the ionospheric experiment include the measurement of the time changes of the columnar electron content between the two spacecraft. The obtained data can provide a basis for the determination of the horizontal gradients of electron density at the height of 220 km.

Grossi, M. D.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting Using Aerodynamic Drag

The ability to re-enter the atmosphere at a desired location is important for spacecraft containing components that may survive re-entry. While impact point targeting has traditionally been initiated through impulsive burns with chemical thrusters on large vehicles such as the Space Shuttle, and the Soyuz and Apollo capsules, many small spacecraft do not host thrusters and require an alternative means of impact point targeting to ensure that falling debris do not cause harm to persons or property. This paper discusses the use of solely aerodynamic drag force to perform this targeting. It is shown that by deploying and retracting a drag device to vary the ballistic coefficient of the spacecraft, any desired longitude and latitude on the ground can be targeted provided that the maneuvering begins early enough and the latitude is less than the inclination of the orbit. An analytical solution based on perturbations from a numerically propagated trajectory is developed to map the initial state and ballistic coefficient profile of a spacecraft to its impact point. This allows the ballistic coefficient profile necessary to reach a given target point to be rapidly calculated, making it feasible to generate the guidance for the decay trajectory onboard the spacecraft. The ability to target an impact point using aerodynamic drag will enhance the capabilities of small spacecraft and will enable larger space vehicles containing thrusters to save fuel by more effectively leveraging the available aerodynamic drag.

propagation↗
NASA NTRS2021

Cluster after 20 Years of Operations: Science Highlights and Technical Challenges

The Cluster mission was the first constellation using four identical spacecraft to study Sun-Earth connection plasma processes. Using four spacecraft in a tetrahedron shape, it could measure, for the first time, 3D quantities such as electrical currents, plasma gradients or divergence of the electron pressure tensor and 3D structures such as boundaries, surface waves or vortices. Launched in pairs in July and August 2000, on two Soyuz rockets from Baikonur, the four spacecraft have been collecting data continuously for more than 20 years. The mission faced many challenges during the years of operations as some spacecraft subsystems had a lifetime of a few years beyond the initial two-year mission. The major one was to operate without functioning batteries and to successfully pass short and long eclipses, up to 3 h long, without damaging the on-board computers and transmitters and without freezing the fuel. More than 1,000 eclipses have been successfully passed since 2010 using a specially made procedure which switches off the complete spacecraft before entering into eclipse and switches it on when the Sun is again illuminating the solar panels. During 20 years, many discoveries and science results have been published in more than 2,700 scientific papers. A few highlights are presented here, focusing on how varying the spacecraft separation was essential to achieve the science goals of the mission. The Cluster Science Data System and the Cluster archive allows public access to all science data as well as spacecraft ancillary data.

C P Escoubet↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Astronauts on Soyuz: Experience and Lessons for the Future

The U. S., Russia, and, China have each addressed the question of human-rating spacecraft. NASA's operational experience with human-rating primarily resides with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station. NASA s latest developmental experience includes Constellation, X38, X33, and the Orbital Space Plane. If domestic commercial crew vehicles are used to transport astronauts to and from space, Soyuz is another example of methods that could be used to human-rate a spacecraft and to work with commercial spacecraft providers. For Soyuz, NASA's normal assurance practices were adapted. Building on NASA's Soyuz experience, this report contends all past, present, and future vehicles rely on a range of methods and techniques for human-rating assurance, the components of which include: requirements, conceptual development, prototype evaluations, configuration management, formal development reviews (safety, design, operations), component/system ground-testing, integrated flight tests, independent assessments, and launch readiness reviews. When constraints (cost, schedule, international) limit the depth/breadth of one or more preferred assurance means, ways are found to bolster the remaining areas. This report provides information exemplifying the above safety assurance model for consideration with commercial or foreign-government-designed spacecraft. Topics addressed include: U.S./Soviet-Russian government/agency agreements and engineering/safety assessments performed with lessons learned in historic U.S./Russian joint space ventures

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

Mir hardware heritage

The heritage of the major Mir complex hardware elements is described. These elements include Soyuz-TM and Progress-M; the Kvant, Kvant 2, and Kristall modules; and the Mir base block. Configuration changes and major mission events of the Salyut 6, Salyut 7, and Mir multiport space stations are described in detail for the period 1977-1994. A comparative chronology of U.S. and Soviet/Russian manned spaceflight is also given for that period. The 68 illustrations include comparative scale drawings of U.S. and Russian spacecraft as well as sequential drawings depicting missions and mission events.

Mir Space Station↗
NASA NTRS1996

The First Joint Report of the General Thomas P. Stafford Task Force and the Academician Vladimir F. Utkin Advisory Expert Council on the Shuttle-Mir Rendezvous and Docking Missions

In October 1992, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Russian Space Agency (RSA) formally agreed to conduct a fundamentally new program of human cooperation in space. The 'Shuttle-Mir Program' encompassed combined astronaut-cosmonaut activities on the Shuttle, Soyuz Test Module(TM), and Mir station spacecraft. At that time, NASA and RSA limited the project to: the STS-60 mission carrying the first Russian cosmonaut to fly on the U.S. Space Shuttle; the launch of the first U.S. astronaut on the Soyuz vehicle for a multi-month mission as a member of a Mir crew; and the change-out of the U.S.-Russian Mir crews with a Russian crew during a Shuttle rendezvous and docking mission with the Mir Station. The objectives of the Phase 1 Program are to provide the basis for the resolution of engineering and technical problems related to the implementation of the ISS and future U.S.-Russian cooperation in space. This, combined with test data generated during the course of the Shuttle flights to the Mir station and extended joint activities between U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts aboard Mir, is expected to reduce the technical risks associated with the construction and operation of the ISS. Phase 1 will further enhance the ISS by combining space operations and joint space technology demonstrations. Phase 1 also provides early opportunities for extended U.S. scientific and research activities, prior to utilization of the ISS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

Soyuz-TM-based interim Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) for the Space Station Freedom

The concept of using the available Soyuz-TM Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) spacecraft for the assurance of the safety of the Space Station Freedom (SSF) crew after the departure of the Space Shuttle from SSF was proposed by the NPO Energia and was accepted by NASA in 1992. The ACRV will provide the crew with the capability to evacuate a seriously injured/ill crewmember from the SSF to a ground-based care facility under medically tolerable conditions and with the capability for a safe evacuation from SSF in the events SSF becomes uninhabitable or the Space Shuttle flights are interrupted for a time that exceeds SSF ability for crew support and/or safe operations. This paper presents the main results of studies on Phase A (including studies on the service life of ACRV; spacecraft design and operations; prelaunch processing; mission support; safety, reliability, maintenance and quality and assurance; landing, and search/rescue operations; interfaces with the SSF and with Space Shuttle; crew accommodation; motion of orbital an service modules; and ACRV injection by the Expendable Launch Vehicles), along with the objectives of further work on the Phase B.

Yu P Semenov↗
NASA NTRS1977

Ultraviolet absorption: Experiment MA-059

A technique devised to permit the measurement of atmospheric species concentrations is described. This technique involves the application of atomic absorption spectroscopy and the quantitative observation of resonance fluorescence in which atomic or molecular species scatter resonance radiation from a light source into a detector. A beam of atomic oxygen and atomic nitrogen resonance radiation, strong unabsorbable oxygen and nitrogen radiation, and visual radiation was sent from Apollo to Soyuz. The density of atomic oxygen and atomic nitrogen between the two spacecraft was measured by observing the amount of resonance radiation absorbed when the line joining Apollo and Soyuz was perpendicular to their velocity with respect to the ambient atmosphere. Results of postflight analysis of the resonance fluorescence data are discussed.

Donahue, T. M.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Probing the earth's gravity field using Satellite-to-Satellite Tracking (SST)

Satellite-to-Satellite (SST) tests, namely: (a) the ATS-6/GEOS-3 and (b) the ATS-6/Apollo-Soyuz experiment and some of the results obtained are described. The main purpose of these two experiments was first to track via ATS-6 the GEOS-3 as well as the Apollo-Soyuz and to use these tracking data to determine (a) both orbits, that is, ATS-6, GEOS-3 and/or the Apollo-Soyuz orbits at the same time; (b) each of these orbits alone; and (c) test the ATS-6/GEOS-3 and/or Apollo-Soyuz SST link to study local gravity anomalies; and, second, to test communications, command, and data transmission from the ground via ATS-6 to these spacecraft and back again to the ground. The Apollo-Soyuz Geodynamics Experiment is discussed in some detail.

Vonbun, F. O.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Impact of Apollo-Era Microbiology on Human Space Flight

The microbiota of crewmembers and the spacecraft environment contributes significant risk to crew health during space flight missions. NASA reduces microbial risk with various mitigation methods that originated during the Apollo Program and continued to evolve through subsequent programs: Skylab, Shuttle, and International Space Station (ISS). A quarantine of the crew and lunar surface samples, within the Lunar Receiving Laboratory following return from the Moon, was used to prevent contamination with unknown extraterrestrial organisms. The quarantine durations for the crew and lunar samples were 21 days and 50 days, respectively. A series of infections among Apollo crewmembers resulted in a quarantine before launch to limit exposure to infectious organisms. This Health Stabilization Program isolated the crew for 21 days before flight and was effective in reducing crew illness. After the program developed water recovery hardware for Apollo spacecraft, the 1967 National Academy of Science Space Science Board recommended the monitoring of potable water. NASA implemented acceptability limits of 10 colony forming units (CFU) per mL and the absence of viable E. coli, anaerobes, yeasts, and molds in three separate 150 mL aliquots. Microbiological investigations of the crew and spacecraft environment were conducted during the Apollo program, including the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and Skylab. Subsequent space programs implemented microbial screening of the crew for pathogens and acceptability limits on spacecraft surfaces and air. Microbiology risk mitigation methods have evolved since the Apollo program. NASA cancelled the quarantine of the crew after return from the lunar surface, reduced the duration of the Health Stabilization Program; and implemented acceptability limits for spacecraft surfaces and air. While microbial risks were not a main focus of the early Mercury and Gemini programs, the extended duration of Apollo flights resulted in the increased scrutiny of impact of the space flight environment on crew health. The lessons learned during that era of space flight continue to impact microbiology risk mitigation in space programs today.

Elliott, T. F↗