Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “U.S. Lander”

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 NTRS2007

The First Year in Review: NASA's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration guides NASA's challenging missions of scientific discovery.' Developing safe, reliable, and affordable space transportation systems for the human and robotic exploration of space is a key component of fulfilling the strategic goals outlined in the Vision, as well as in the U.S. Space Policy. In October 2005, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and its Constellation Program chartered the Exploration Launch Projects Office, located at the Marshall Space Flight Center, to design, develop, test, and field a new generation of launch vehicles that would fulfill customer and stakeholder requirements for trips to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The Ares I crew launch vehicle is slated to loft the Orion crew exploration vehicle to orbit by 2014, while the heavy-lift Ares V cargo launch vehicle will deliver the lunar lander to orbit by 2020 (Fig. 1). These systems are being designed to empower America's return to the Moon to prepare for the first astronaut on Mars. The new launch vehicle designs now under study reflect almost 50 years of hard-won experience gained from the Saturn's missions to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and from the venerable Space Shuttle, which is due to be retired by 2010.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tours of High-containment and Pristine Facilities in Support of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Definition Studies

During 2019 and 2020, the NASA Tiger Team RAMA (acronym of the authors) toured several high-containment biosafety laboratories and pristine space-mission facilities worldwide to better understand their practices, capabilities, and lessons-learned to aid in planning a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) in support of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The team also included tours of a manufacturer of mobile and modular high-containment facilities as well as manufacturers of isolators and gloveboxes. In addition, the team visited the European Space Agency (ESA)ultraclean and sterile ISO 3 / airborne molecular contamination -9 (AMC-9) isolator line to clean and assemble the most critical hardware for ESA’s ExoMars Mars Lander System, and researchers developing a novel double-walled isolator (DWI) and robotic handling techniques in support of an MSR SRF. The RAMA team visits covered several construction modalities for an MSR SRF: (1) a new traditional fixed facility; (2) use of an existing fixed Biosafety Level 4(BSL-4) facility; (3) a novel modular BSL-4 approach; and (4) a hybrid combination of fixed, modular, and existing facilities. A new fixed facility approach can be tailored to MSR’s needs and is the approach used by all U.S. BSL-4 laboratories constructed to date. However, this approach could be the most expensive modality, take the longest to implement (8-12 years), and have significant programmatic risk of delay. The utilization of an existing BSL-4 facility may be possible depending on the final contamination control and science requirements for the MSR SRF. Due to the internal dimensions of the labs visited and facility structural requirements, it is unlikely that any modification can be made to the facility to meet cleanliness requirements. Furthermore, due to possible construction delays, possible capacity issues, and potential cross contamination vectors from in-house select agents, there may also be significant programmatic risks for sharing an existing facility. Another approach is building a contemporary modular facility. This is a novel approach that has recently been used for a BSL-3/3Ag facilities. The modular elements would be installed in a traditional building or shell structure. A modular facility has many advantages over a traditional fixed facility with lower costs, shorter design/construction/ commissioning schedule, and flexibility for easier retrofits and future expansion. Lastly, a hybrid approach of combining the use of either: (1) a modular facility inside a new fixed facility or (2) a modular and/or fixed BSL-4 annex in conjunction with an existing BSL-4 space should be considered. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the facility could leverage the strengths of other approaches. Beyond facility construction approaches, the RAMA team investigated technologies and techniques for isolating and handling Martian samples in pristine environments. For example, ESA has been studying and developing a DWI breadboard along with other sample-handling technologies. The research and development investment for clean, remote manipulation and robotics at the start of the facility design phase would be beneficial to the SRF. Additionally, under-standing the lessons learned from Thales Alenia Space during the construction and operation of the most advanced state-of-the-art precision cleaning, sterilization, and assembly glovebox isolators ever developed for spacecraft hardware are also critical for the SRF. The RAMA team lays out a summary of the 18 facilities toured, and includes 43 observations,18 findings, and 22 areas of possible follow-up that the RAMA team and others could pursue to enable further findings. The observations and findings illustrate that constructing an MSR SRF would combine the complexity of both high-containment and pristine facilities, and merging these technologies would be challenging, but achievable.

Mars Sample Return↗
NASA NTRS1984

Revised planetary protection policy for solar system exploration

In order to control contamination of planets by terrestrial microorganisms and organic constituents, U.S. planetary missions have been governed by a planetary protection (or planetary quarantine) policy which has changed little since 1972. This policy has recently been reviewed in light of new information obtained from planetary exploration during the past decade and because of changes to, or uncertainties in, some parameters used in the existing quantitative approach. On the basis of this analysis, a revised planetary protection policy with the following key features is proposed: deemphasizing the use of mathematical models and quantitative analyses; establishing requirements for target planet/mission type (i.e., Orbiter, Lander, etc.) combinations; considering sample return missions a separate category; simplifying documentation; and imposing implementing procedures (i.e., trajectory biasing, cleanroom assembly, spacecraft sterilization, etc.) by exception, i.e., only if the planet/mission combination warrants such controls.

Devincenzi, D. L.↗
NASA NTRS1988

A Mars orbital laser altimeter for rover trafficability: Instrument concept and science potential

Limited information on the types of geologic hazards (boulders, troughs, craters etc.) that will affect rover trafficability on Mars are available for the two Viking Lander sites, and there are no prospects for increasing this knowledge base in the near future. None of the instrument payloads on the upcoming Mars Observer or Soviet PHOBOS missions can directly measure surface obstacles on the scales of concern for rover safety (a few meters). Candidate instruments for the Soviet Mars 92 orbiter/balloon/rover mission such as balloon-borne stereo imaging, rover panoramic imaging, and orbital synthetic aperature imaging (SAR) are under discussion, but data from this mission may not be available for target areas of interest for the U.S. Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR) mission. In an effort to determine how to directly measure the topography of surface obstacles that could affect rover trafficability on Mars, we are studying how to design a laser altimeter with extremely high spatial and vertical resolution that would be suitable for a future Mars Orbiter spacecraft (MRSR precursor or MRSR orbiter). This report discusses some of the design issues associated with such an instrument, gives examples of laser altimeter data collected for Mars analog terrains on Earth, and outlines the scientific potential of data that could be obtained with the system.

Garvin, J. B.↗
NASA NTRS2001

So What's an RTG and Are They Safe?

When one considers space missions to the outer edges of our solar system and far beyond, our sun cannot be relied on to produce the required spacecraft (s/c) power. Solar energy diminishes as the square of the distance from the Sun. At Mars it is only 43% of that at earth. At Jupiter, it falls off to only 3.6% of Earth's. By the time we get out to Pluto, solar energy is only .066% what it is on Earth. Beyond the orbit of Mars, it is not practical to depend on solar power for a s/c. However, the farther out we go the more power we need to heat the s/c and to transmit data back to Earth over the long distances. On Earth, knowledge is power. In the outer solar system, power is knowledge. Solar arrays only operate at 19% efficiency, are very vulnerable to damage from radiation and temperature extremes, and cannot be used for even nearby missions that operate in extended darkness, or under the surface of a planet or moon. Twenty-six U.S. space missions, from the Transit to Cassini, have used radioisotope power systems and heater units to take s/c to the far reaches of our solar system and have demonstrated an outstanding record of safety and reliability. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG's) have proven to be safe, reliable, maintenance-free, and capable of providing both thermal and electrical power for decades under the harsh environments of deep space. RTG's have no problem operating in the high radiation belts of space, the extreme temperatures, or the severe dust storms of Mars, and they have proven to be the most reliable power source ever flown on U.S. s/c. For example, the two Pioneer s/c operated for more than two decades and the Voyager s/c may last for 40 years. RTG's are not nuclear reactors, they serve only as power generators and are not involved in the propulsion of the s/c. They operate on the principle of thermoelectric generation that converts heat directly into electricity, they have no moving parts, are extremely reliable, and have met or exceeded all safety and performance expectations. Federal laws and regulations require analysis and evaluation of the safety risks and any potential environmental impacts. Extensive safety testing of RTG's and RTG components has been performed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to demonstrate the ability to survive accidents related to Space Shuttle launches and assure that the systems would be safe under all accident conditions, including accidents at or near the launch pad or during orbital reentry. Many design improvements have been made over the four decades that RTG's have been flown on space missions. This paper outlines the operation and safety standards of RTG's and the advanced developments expected to be used on future deep space missions such as the Europa Orbiter, Pluto/Kuiper Express, Solar Probe, Europa Lander, and Titan Explorer missions.

Barret, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2024

Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate: Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery. Extending the reach of humanity through the human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond is key to that mission. NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives document establishes long-term goals and objectives for crewed deep space exploration; however, satisfying NASA’s Moon to Mars Objectives requires an innovative approach to the definition, management, and execution of NASA’s Moon to Mars Architecture. An architecture offers a high-level unifying structure and defines a system. It provides rules, guidelines, and constraints that define a cohesive and coherent framework that identifies constituent parts, relationships, and connections and establishes how those parts fit and work together. This Architecture Definition Document (ADD) establishes the process for the decomposition of objectives empowers the agency’s success in achieving human exploration of the cosmos. NASA updates this document annually to reflect the maturation of the architecture and the progress NASA and partners make toward achieving exploration objectives. The ADD is not a manifest or requirements document. Instead, it serves as a tool for the programs, projects, and engineers who will implement and execute NASA’s bold ambitions for crewed exploration of deep space. As established in the Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives, “Why” we explore encompasses three pillars: Science, Inspiration, and National Posture. Ensuring success in all three areas requires an architectural approach that incorporates innovation, collaboration, and partnerships that can be sustained across a multi-decadal effort. This second revision (Rev-B) of the ADD, developed to support NASA’s 2024 Architecture Concept Review (ACR), incorporates several key updates to support the continued evolution of the architecture. Since the last revision of the ADD, NASA has significantly improved the clarity of the objective decomposition, which distills exploration objectives into the characteristics and needs and use cases and functions needed to achieve them. The updated decomposition incorporates findings from internal studies and diverse stakeholder feedback. A model-based systems engineering approach ensures coherence and consistency, removing inconsistency and repetition. Revision B also incorporates advancements to NASA’s Mars architecture, including insight into initial capabilities, systems, and operations necessary to support the Humans to Mars segment. Updates to objective decomposition for Mars add significant detail to the ADD and hint at areas of forward work and future study. An appendix adds greater depth in the future decisions needed for Mars that will drive lunar needs. They are not the only decisions to be made, but they will have huge effects on subsequent decisions. NASA continues to introduce new exploration systems into the architecture. Two new elements — initial surface habitat and lunar surface cargo lander—successfully passed mission concept review in 2024 as a result of extensive analysis, concept refinement, and studies. These elements and their respective reference missions appear in this revision. NASA also continues to apply architecture processes to cross-agency efforts and coordination with external stakeholders by including definitions of architecture technology gaps — essential areas for engagement across and beyond the agency. The technology gaps appendix identifies areas that need attention and innovation to enable future exploration. In publishing this information, NASA communicates the technologies and capabilities that may benefit from partnership with industry, academia, other U.S. government agencies, and international space agencies. Ultimately, NASA established the Moon to Mars Architecture approach to communicate and facilitate humanity’s journey into the universe according to the principles and recurring tenets of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives. The NASA architecture team thanks their many stakeholders, participants, and partners for their efforts to review and provide feedback. Their support has been critical to the success of this approach.

Elements↗
NASA NTRS2008

Engineering America's Current and Future Space Transportation Systems: 50 Years of Systems Engineering Innovation for Sustainable Exploration

Over the past 50 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has delivered space transportation solutions for America's complex missions, ranging from scientific payloads that expand knowledge, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, to astronauts and lunar rovers destined for voyages to the Moon. Currently, the venerable Space Shuttle, which has been in service since 1981, provides the United States' (U.S.) capability for both crew and heavy cargo to low-Earth orbit to' construct the International Space Station, before the Shuttle is retired in 2010. In the next decade, NASA will replace this system with a duo of launch vehicles: the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (Figure 1). The goals for this new system include increased safety and reliability coupled with lower operations costs that promote sustainable space exploration for decades to come. The Ares I will loft the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, while the heavy-lift Ares V will carry the Altair Lunar Lander and the equipment and supplies needed to construct a lunar outpost for a new generation of human and robotic space pioneers. This paper will provide details of the in-house systems engineering and vehicle integration work now being performed for the Ares I and planned for the Ares V. It will give an overview of the Ares I system-level test activities, such as the ground vibration testing that will be conducted in the Marshall Center's Dynamic Test Stand to verify the integrated vehicle stack's structural integrity and to validate computer modeling and simulation (Figure 2), as well as the main propulsion test article analysis to be conducted in the Static Test Stand. These activities also will help prove and refine mission concepts of operation, while supporting the spectrum of design and development work being performed by Marshall's Engineering Directorate, ranging from launch vehicles and lunar rovers to scientific spacecraft and associated experiments. Ultimately, fielding a robust space transportation solution that will carry international explorers and essential payloads will pave the way for a new century of scientific discovery beyond planet Earth.

Dmbacher, Daniel L.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Terrestrial case studies of ilmenite exploration and lunar implications

The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) includes space resource utilization as one of the four architectures to achieve U.S. goals in space. Space resource utilization will make use of lunar resources to support long term activities on the lunar surface. Lunar ilmenite and regolith are two of the materials that can be mined and processed for lunar oxygen production. During this investigation, several sources were reviewed to assess terrestrial exploration methods used for locating ilmenite resources. These sources included published reports on terrestrial ilmenite exploration methods, analytical methods, case histories, chemical and physical properties, and associations with other minerals. Using a terrestrial analog and considering the differences between terrestrial and lunar environmental conditions, rocks, and minerals, exploration methods and analytical instruments can be recommended for a lunar orbiter and lander for assessing lunar resources. Twelve terrestrial case histories were reviewed to gain insight into ilmenite exploration on the Moon. All exploration case histories follow the same pattern. They begin with a model, use remote geophysical techniques, define regional sampling sites from the model and geophysics, narrow down the area of exploration based on the preceding work, collect more samples and cores, and perform laboratory analyses of samples. An important part of this process is the collection of samples to determine the correctness of the model. Surface and core samples are collected in areas expected to contain both high and low concentration of the commodity to test the model. After samples are analyzed and the area of mineralization is defined, reserves are calculated to determine the cost/benefit ratio, the necessary capacity of the processing plant, and the life of the mine. The exploration methods used for locating terrestrial ilmenite resources are reviewed with respect to the petrology, chemistry, and mineral associations of the terrestrial and lunar environments.

Feldman, S. C.↗
NASA NTRS1984

A historical overview of the electrical power systems in the US manned and some US unmanned spacecraft

A historical overview of electrical power systems used in the U.S. manned spacecraft and some of the U.S. unmanned spacecraft is presented in this investigation. A time frame of approximately 25 years, the period for 1959 to 1984, is covered in this report. Results indicate that the nominal bus voltage was 28 volts dc in most spacecraft and all other voltage levels were derived from this voltage through such techniques as voltage inversion or rectification, or a combination. Most spacecraft used solar arrays for the main source of power except for those spacecraft that had a relatively short flight duration, or deep spaceprobes that were designed for very long flight duration. Fuel cells were used on Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle (short duration flights) while radioisotope thermoelectric generators were employed on the Pioneer, Jupiter/Saturn, Viking Lander, and Voyager spacecraft (long duration flights). The main dc bus voltage was unregulated on the manned spacecraft with voltage regulation provided at the user loads. A combination of regulated, semiregulated, and unregulated buses were used on the unmanned spacecraft depending on the type of load. For example, scientific instruments were usually connected to regulated buses while fans, relays, etc. were energized from an unregulated bus. Different forms of voltage regulation, such as shunt, buck/boot, and pulse-width modulated regulators, were used. This report includes a comprehensive bibliography on spacecraft electrical power systems for the space programs investigated.

Maisel, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS1988

A Marineris Vallis sample site

Consideration is given to the choice of a Marineris Vallis canyon site in that it may offer the widest possible variety of martian units with a minimum amount of roving. Researchers support this in the classical comparison of Marineris Vallis with the Grand Canyon of the U.S.A. It is well-known to American geologists that most of the geological units in the U.S. may be found here in one section. Might not the Martian canyon offer a similar selection but only more so in view of its much greater size. A system whereby this sampling may be effected is proposed based on a combination of a skip with a wire-line core-barrel method. The final design will depend more on the completeness of the core to be taken as the entire section is that long that the weight of the core of the whole section may well be prohibitive for return to Earth unless several returns are envisaged. The wire-line is operated from a static head-gear in much the same way as an oil well implying a lander not needing mobility of any kind - a destinct advantage.

Bridger, C. S.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Lifting Body Flight Vehicles

NASA has a technology program in place to build the X-33 test vehicle and then the full sized Reusable Launch Vehicle, VentureStar. VentureStar is a Lifting Body (LB) flight vehicle which will carry our future payloads into orbit, and will do so at a much reduced cost. There were three design contenders for the new Reusable Launch Vehicle: a Winged Vehicle, a Vertical Lander, and the Lifting Body(LB). The LB design won the competition. A LB vehicle has no wings and derives its lift solely from the shape of its body, and has the unique advantages of superior volumetric efficiency, better aerodynamic efficiency at high angles-of-attack and hypersonic speeds, and reduced thermal protection system weight. Classically, in a ballistic vehicle, drag has been employed to control the level of deceleration in reentry. In the LB, lift enables the vehicle to decelerate at higher altitudes for the same velocity and defines the reentry corridor which includes a greater cross range. This paper outlines our LB heritage which was utilized in the design of the new Reusable Launch Vehicle, VentureStar. NASA and the U.S. Air Force have a rich heritage of LB vehicle design and flight experience. Eight LB's were built and over 225 LB test flights were conducted through 1975 in the initial LB Program. Three LB series were most significant in the advancement of today's LB technology: the M2-F; HL-1O; and X-24 series. The M2-F series was designed by NASA Ames Research Center, the HL-10 series by NASA Langley Research Center, and the X-24 series by the Air Force. LB vehicles are alive again today.

Barret, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2007

A New Heavy-Lift Capability for Space Exploration: NASA's Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing new launch systems and preparing to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010, as directed in the United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and the Ares V heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) systems will build upon proven, reliable hardware derived from the Apollo-Saturn and Space Shuttle programs to deliver safe, reliable, affordable space transportation solutions. This approach leverages existing aerospace talent and a unique infrastructure, as well as legacy knowledge gained from nearly 50 years' experience developing space hardware. Early next decade, the Ares I will launch the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to the International Space Station (ISS) or to low-Earth orbit for trips to the Moon and, ultimately, Mars. Late next decade, the Ares V's Earth Departure Stage will carry larger payloads such as the lunar lander into orbit, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle will dock with it for missions to the Moon, where astronauts will explore new territories and conduct science and technology experiments. Both Ares I and Ares V are being designed to support longer future trips to Mars. The Exploration Launch Projects Office is designing, developing, testing, and evaluating both launch vehicle systems in partnership with other NASA Centers, Government agencies, and industry contractors. This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also discusses riskbased, management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it summarizes several notable accomplishments since October 2005, when the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.

Sumrall, John P.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Ares V: Enabling Unprecedented Payloads for Space in the 21st Century

Numerous technical and programmatic studies since the U.S. space program began in the 1960s has emphasized the need for a heavy lift capability for exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). The Saturn V once embodied that capability until it was retired. Now the Ares V cargo launch vehicle (CaLV) promises to restore and improve on that capability, providing unprecedented opportunities for human and robotic exploration, science, national security and commercial uses. This paper provides an overview of the capabilities of Ares V, both as an opportunity for payloads of increased mass and/or volume, and as a means of reducing risk in the payload design process. The Ares V is part of NASA s Constellation Program, which also includes the Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV), Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV), and Altair lunar lander. This architecture is designed to carry out the national space policy goals of completing the International Space Station (ISS), retiring the Space Shuttle fleet, and expanding human exploration beyond LEO. The Ares V is designed to loft upper stages and/or cargo, such as the Altair lander, into LEO. The Ares I is designed to put Orion into LEO with a crew of up to four for rendezvous with the ISS or with the Ares V Earth departure stage for journeys to the Moon. While retaining the goals of heritage hardware and commonality, the Ares V configuration continues to be refined through a series of internal trades. The current reference configuration was recommended by the Ares Projects and approved by the Constellation Program during the Lunar Capabilities Concept Review (LCCR) June 2008. The reference configuration defines the Ares V as 381 feet (116m) tall with a gross lift-off mass (GLOM) of 8.1 million pounds (3,704.5 mT). Its first stage will generate 11 million pounds of sea-level liftoff thrust. It will be capable of launching 413,800 pounds (187.7 mT) to LEO, 138,500 pounds (63 mT) direct to the Moon or 156,700 pounds (71.1 mT) in its dual-launch architecture role with Ares I. It could also launch 123,100 pounds (55.8 mT) to Sun-Earth L2. Assessment of astronomy payload requirements since Spring 2008 has indicated that Ares V has the potential to support a range of payloads and missions. Some of these missions were impossible in the absence of Ares V s capabilities. Collaborative design/architecture inputs, exchanges, and analyses have already begun between scientists and payload developers. A 2008 study by a National Research Council (NRC) panel, as well as analyses presented by astronomers and planetary scientists at two weekend conferences in 2008, support the position that Ares V has benefit to a broad range of planetary and astronomy missions. This early dialogue with Ares V engineers is permitting the greatest opportunity for payload/transportation/mission synergy and with the least financial impact to Ares V development. In addition, independent analyses suggest that Ares V has the opportunity to enable more cost-effective mission design. 1

Creech, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of Dual-Launch Lunar Architectures Using the Mission Assessment Post Processor

The National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA) Constellation Program is currently designing a new transportation system to replace the Space Shuttle, support human missions to both the International Space Station (ISS) and the Moon, and enable the eventual establishment of an outpost on the lunar surface. The present Constellation architecture is designed to meet nominal capability requirements and provide flexibility sufficient for handling a host of contingency scenarios including (but not limited to) launch delays at the Earth. This report summarizes a body of work performed in support of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Committee. It analyzes three lunar orbit rendezvous dual-launch architecture options which incorporate differing methodologies for mitigating the effects of launch delays at the Earth. NASA employed the recently-developed Mission Assessment Post Processor (MAPP) tool to quickly evaluate vehicle performance requirements for several candidate approaches for conducting human missions to the Moon. The MAPP tool enabled analysis of Earth perturbation effects and Earth-Moon geometry effects on the integrated vehicle performance as it varies over the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle. Results are provided summarizing best-case and worst-case vehicle propellant requirements for each architecture option. Additionally, the associated vehicle payload mass requirements at launch are compared between each architecture and against those of the Constellation Program. The current Constellation Program architecture assumes that the Altair lunar lander and Earth Departure Stage (EDS) vehicles are launched on a heavy lift launch vehicle. The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is separately launched on a smaller man-rated vehicle. This strategy relaxes man-rating requirements for the heavy lift launch vehicle and has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of the overall architecture over the operational lifetime of the program. The crew launch occurs first, four days prior to the optimal trans-lunar injection (TLI) departure window. This is done to allow for launch delays in the Altair/EDS launch. During this time, the Orion vehicle is required to conduct orbit maintenance while loitering in low Earth orbit (LEO). The alternative architectures presented aim to eliminate the need for costly orbit maintenance maneuvers while loitering in LEO. In all of the alternative architectures considered, it is assumed that the Altair and Orion vehicles are nominally launched 90 minutes apart, depart the Earth separately, and complete the rendezvous and docking sequence at the Moon. In this lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) strategy, both the Altair and Orion vehicles will require separate EDS stages, and each will be required to perform lunar orbit insertion (LOI). This has the effect of balancing payload requirements between the two launch vehicles at the Earth. In this case, the overall payload mass is increased slightly, but the increased mission costs could potentially be offset by requiring the construction of two rockets similar in size and nature, unlike the current Constellation architecture. Three dual-launch architecture options with LOR were evaluated, which incorporate differing methodologies for mitigating the effects of launch delays at the Earth. Benefits and drawbacks of each of the dual-launch architecture options with LOR are discussed and the overall mission performance is compared with that of the existing Constellation Program lunar architecture.

Stewart, Shaun M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

A New Heavy-Lift Capability for Space Exploration: NASA's Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing new launch systems in preparation for the retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010, as directed in the United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and the Ares V heavy-lift Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) systems will build upon proven, reliable hardware derived from the Apollo Saturn (1961 to 1975) and Space Shuttle (1972 to 2010) programs to deliver safe, reliable, affordable space transportation solutions. This approach leverages existing aerospace talent and a unique infrastructure, as well as the vast amount of legacy knowledge gained from almost a half-century of hard-won experience in the space enterprise. Beginning early next decade, the Ares I will launch the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to the International Space Station (ISS) or to low-Earth orbit for trips to the Moon and, ultimately, Mars. Late next decade, the Ares V's Earth Departure Stage will carry larger payloads such as the lunar lander into orbit, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle will dock with it for missions to the Moon, where astronauts will explore new territories and conduct science and technology experiments. Both the Ares I and Ares V systems are being designed to support longer future trips to Mars. The Exploration Launch Projects Office, located at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is designing, developing, testing, and evaluating both launch vehicle systems in partnership with other NASA Centers, Government agencies, and industry contractors. This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also touches on risk-based management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it gives a summary of several notable accomplishments over the past year, since the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off in October 2005, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.

Sumrall, John P.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Interior structure and seasonal mass redistribution of Mars from radio tracking of Mars Pathfinder

Doppler and range measurements to the Mars Pathfinder lander made using its radio communications system have been combined with similar measurements from the Viking landers to estimate improved values of the precession of Mars' pole of rotation and the variation in Mars' rotation rate. The observed precession of -7576 +/- 35 milliarc seconds of angle per year implies a dense core and constrains possible models of interior composition. The estimated annual variation in rotation is in good agreement with a model of seasonal mass exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and ice caps.

unmanned↗
NASA NTRS1999

Examining Mars with SPICE

The International Mars Conference highlights the wealth of scientific data now and soon to be acquired from an international armada of Mars-bound robotic spacecraft. Underlying the planning and interpretation of these scientific observations around and upon Mars are ancillary data and associated software needed to deal with trajectories or locations, instrument pointing, timing and Mars cartographic models. The NASA planetary community has adopted the SPICE system of ancillary data standards and allied tools to fill the need for consistent, reliable access to these basic data and a near limitless range of derived parameters. After substantial rapid growth in its formative years, the SPICE system continues to evolve today to meet new needs and improve ease of use. Adaptations to handle landers and rovers were prototyped on the Mars pathfinder mission and will next be used on Mars '01-'05. Incorporation of new methods to readily handle non-inertial reference frames has vastly extended the capability and simplified many computations. A translation of the SPICE Toolkit software suite to the C language has just been announced. To further support cartographic calculations associated with Mars exploration the SPICE developers at JPL have recently been asked by NASA to work with cartographers to develop standards and allied software for storing and accessing control net and shape model data sets; these will be highly integrated with existing SPICE components. NASA specifically supports the widest possible utilization of SPICE capabilities throughout the international space science community. With NASA backing the Russian Space Agency and Russian Academy of Science adopted the SPICE standards for the Mars 96 mission. The SPICE ephemeris component will shortly become the international standard for agencies using the Deep Space Network. U.S. and European scientists hope that ESA will employ SPICE standards on the Mars Express mission. SPICE is an open set of standards, and all related specifications and software are freely distributed around the world. This poster describes the current state of SPICE system development, with special emphasis on current and planned support for Mars exploration missions.

Acton, Charles H.↗
DOE OSTI2023

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Verification Testing for Sodium Fast Reactor Applications: Acceptance Testing Report

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 (SAS) is a simulation tool used to perform deterministic analyses of anticipated events as well as design basis and beyond design basis accidents for advanced liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactors. With its origin as SAS1A in the late 1960s, the SAS series of codes has been under continuous use and development for over forty-five years and represents a critical investment in safety analysis capabilities for the U.S. Department of Energy. To support demonstration of software pedigree and confirm key functional requirements, this report has been generated to provide detailed verification of the software. Although SAS was developed to support the analysis of any liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, the acceptance testing described in this document focuses on the verification of SAS capabilities as they relate to pool-type Sodium Fast Reactors (SFRs). This report includes documentation of the test problem definition, analytical solution(s), computational solution(s), acceptance criteria, comparisons of analytical/computational solutions, and determination of acceptance of the computational solution(s). Deviations from acceptance criteria are noted.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗