Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Artemis III”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: Artemis I Results and the Path Forward

On Nov. 16, 2022, NASA launched the Artemis I mission on the agency’s new SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. The debut launch of the integrated vehicle sent an uncrewed Orion spacecraft into a distant retrograde (DRO) orbit about the Moon to accomplish multiple mission objectives, including evaluating Orion’s heatshield at lunar return velocities and collecting critical data from the first flight of the new superheavy lift launch vehicle. Post-flight data analyses show that the rocket performed with a high degree of precision and accuracy. In addition to completing testing and launch of the Artemis I SLS in 2022, notable progress was made on hardware for future launch vehicles that will support Artemis missions II, III, IV, and V. The Artemis II core stage is mostly complete, and its RS-25 engines were integrated in the fall of 2023. The Artemis II solid rocket booster motor segments were shipped to the launch site in September 2023. Propellant tanks are being manufactured for additional missions, solid booster segments are being cast and prepared, software is being developed, and production of new RS-25 engines is underway. A more capable upper stage is in development, as well as a large adapter to encapsulate a 10-metric ton (t) co-manifested payload. This paper will provide details on the Artemis I flight as well as cover hardware progress for the future flights as available.

John Honeycutt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Hardness Testing of Mobile Launcher 1 (ML-1) Vehicle Support Posts (VSP) Following Artemis I Launch Exposure

Following the successful launch of Artemis I on November 16th, 2022 (Fig 1), a surface hardness assessment was performed on the eight primary VSPs (Figs. 2, 3) located on the Zero Deck of the ML. This assessment was performed as part of an instrument investigation for strain gauges installed on VSP interior surfaces that had a “strange reaction”. This report does not address the VSP strain gauge investigation, but rather VSP structural integrity for future service (Artemis II, III, …). Surface hardness measurements were taken to assess the strength of the ASTM A148 steel castings to confirm thermal exposure from launch had not reannealed the VSPs. However unlikely, it is possible high temperature may have heated and tempered (reannealed) the VSPs, resulting in a change of built-in stresses. This loss in built-in stress may explain the change in off-set measured by the strain gauges. Initial hardness measurements were made at two interior surfaces of VSPs near the strain gauges and the corresponding exterior surfaces (engine hole-facing). Field hardness measurements on the exterior, engine hole surface-facing surfaces for all eight VSPs ranged from 175 to 226 HB/P, well below the minimum hardness of 302 Brinell (HB). Opposing interior surface hardness measurements near strain gauges ranged from 264 to 358 HB/P. In all cases for flight VSPs, a drop in interior-to-exterior hardness ranging from 70 to 132 HB/P was measured. Surface hardness measurements were then made on the two spare VSPs not exposed to launch temperatures for baseline comparison. These two spare VSPs had a drop in Brinell hardness from interior to exterior surfaces ranging from 3 to 17 HB/P. The large interior-to-exterior delta hardness for eight flight VSPs but not for the two spare VSPs suggests launch exposure temperatures softened the exterior surfaces, raising two questions: 1) Are the VSPs compromised for future use, and 2) How deep is the exterior surface softening effect? To address concerns of low surface hardness values at non-critical exterior surfaces, additional field surface hardness measurements were taken at high-stress locations on VSP3: Both door jams, back radius, and internal left and right radius near the base. These values came in well above the required minimum hardness (317 to 365 HB/P). For a more representative pre-launch versus post-launch surface hardness comparison, VSP Acceptance Data Packages (ADPs) were reviewed, and hardness measurements were made at the same eight original locations on VSP3 where hardness measurements were made at the foundry. To determine the degree of softening, 1/8” of material was machined away at three exterior surfaces of engine hole-facing side (Fig. 4). A significant increase in surface hardness was measured ranging from 50 to 86 HB/P. Values at these three locations were still slightly below the required minimum hardness, so an additional 1/8” material was machined away, and hardness values were retaken. At the ¼” depth, hardness values increased to 321 to 324 HB/P. These values fall above the required minimum, concluding surface hardness testing. Rationale for VSP continued use was reached with no restrictions during a Chief Engineering Review based on hardness values exceeding minimum at critical locations and subsurface locations for VSP #3.

Artemis I↗
NASA NTRS2023

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT) Field Test 3 (JETT3) Report

The purpose of this field test and corresponding report is to evolve the lunar surface EVA concept of operations and hardware via developmental testing. This report compiles and summarizes the goals, infrastructure, test configuration, conclusions, and recommendations from the JETT3 field test. These insights are intended to inform future integrated testing efforts and broader Artemis campaign development activities.

NASA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Risk Characterization Research for Artemis II: Human Factors and Behavioral Performance

BACKGROUND Artemis II will be the first time NASA astronauts go beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) since the Apollo era, and the first astronauts heading into space in the Orion vehicle. As such, it provides a critical opportunity to refine our understanding of the likelihood and consequences associated with the Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Human System Integration Architecture (HSIA), and Sleep Risks, and prepare for future Moon and Mars missions. However, Artemis II research efforts are uniquely shaped by in-mission data collection constraints. There is currently no in-mission crew time available to complete measures. In-mission data will need to be collected unobtrusively from available data streams (e.g., audiovisual, existing records such as schedules, and actigraphy). Accordingly, the overarching goal of our research is to utilize Artemis II data to further define the likelihood and consequences of these risks, and to create an unobtrusive research infrastructure that can be expanded to include future Artemis missions. This goal spans four aims across three research phases: (1) identify and operationally define key performances metrics and constructs across the four aforementioned risks, (2) develop an unobtrusive methodology and coding scheme for in-mission data collection, (3) characterize performance decrements due to Bmed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep Risks, and (4) develop a data infrastructure for future Artemis missions. The following details results of Phase I efforts in which we address Aims 1 and 2 to develop an unobtrusive measurement plan and coding scheme to capture key constructs, contributing factors, and performance decrements across each risk area. METHOD As part of Phase I, we conducted an interdisciplinary literature review and consulted with SMEs to identify unobtrusive methodologies that leverage text, audio, and/or video data as well as conceptualize key performance metrics, contributing factors, and BMed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep risk constructs related to performance decrements. The Phase I effort resulted in a finalized pre- and post-mission protocol for Artemis II, along with a measurement and coding scheme for in-mission Artemis II data. Phase II will involve data collection from the upcoming Artemis II mission. Phase III will include data processing, coding, depiction, analysis, and report writing of the Artemis II data. RESULTS & DISCUSSION To date, we have completed Phase I efforts. Specifically, we identified BMed, Team, HSIA, and Sleep risk constructs related to performance metrics, summarized how these constructs can be measured using audiovisual data collected during the mission, and worked with NASA’s HFBP Element to finalize a data collection protocol that leverages audiovisual input from the Orion spacecraft system. Our protocol includes novel unobtrusive methodologies that adhere to in-mission data streams and subsequent constraints (e.g., limited storage space on GoPro cameras, ambient noise impeding audio files) to best capture in-mission phenomena across each risk area. We will present our results from Phase I efforts, namely best practices for unobtrusive measurement as identified through literature reviews and SME consultation as well as codebook excerpts for use in Artemis II. We will include a description of planned work as we prepare for Phase II and Phase III of this research plan and the Artemis II mission itself. SUMMARY We describe progress on our Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Research for Artemis II study.

behavioral health↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Behavior of High-Velocity Dust Generated by Lander Plumes in the Lunar Environment

Lunar lander plumes have been determined to generate fine ejecta at speeds exceeding 2 km/s [1], and recent work [2] has shown that Escape Velocity Domain (EVD) ejecta may remain in orbit for extended periods of time. By confining this study to expected near-term lunar activity and the known cone of dust generated by lunar landings, the behavior of high-velocity dust is characterized in an effort to understand its impact on orbiting lunar infrastructure such as the Gateway as well as the footprint of reimpacting dust on the lunar surface. In addition to the regular 3-body gravitation effects, the effects of Solar Radiation Pressure and charge are both quantified and modeled.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗
NASA NTRS1995

Ulysses radio observations of the heliospheric activity in early June 1991

The radio receiver of the URAP (Unified Radio and Plasma Wave) experiment on Ulysses has recorded a heliospheric activity particularly intense between late May and early June 1991. Many solar radio emissions of types III and II were observed together with interplanetary (IP) shocks. In the same time, the radio spectrograph ARTEMIS at Nancay (France) observed several intense type II bursts. We investigate the association and/or interaction of these radio emissions, which are remotely observed, with some IP shocks detected in situ, in the context of a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) induced scenario.

Hoang, S.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Structural analysis of the catalytic domain of Artemis endonuclease/SNM1C reveals distinct structural features

The endonuclease Artemis is responsible for opening DNA hairpins during V(D)J recombination and for processing a subset of pathological DNA double-strand breaks. Artemis is an attractive target for the development of therapeutics to manage various B cell and T cell tumors, because failure to open DNA hairpins and accumulation of chromosomal breaks may reduce the proliferation and viability of pre-T and pre-B cell derivatives. However, structure-based drug discovery of specific Artemis inhibitors has been hampered by a lack of crystal structures. Here, we report the structure of the catalytic domain of recombinant human Artemis. The catalytic domain displayed a polypeptide fold similar overall to those of other members in the DNA cross-link repair gene SNM1 family and in mRNA 3'-end-processing endonuclease CPSF-73, containing metallo-β-lactamase and β-CASP domains and a cluster of conserved histidine and aspartate residues capable of binding two metal atoms in the catalytic site. As in SNM1A, only one zinc ion was located in the Artemis active site. However, Artemis displayed several unique features. Unlike in other members of this enzyme class, a second zinc ion was present in the β-CASP domain that leads to structural reorientation of the putative DNA-binding surface and extends the substrate-binding pocket to a new pocket, pocket III. Moreover, the substrate-binding surface exhibited a dominant and extensive positive charge distribution compared with that in the structures of SNM1A and SNM1B, presumably because of the structurally distinct DNA substrate of Artemis. The structural features identified here may provide opportunities for designing selective Artemis inhibitors.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

Apparatus and method for determining state of change (SOC) and state of health (SOH) of electrical cells

Systems and methods for prediction of state of charge (SOH), state of health (SOC) and other characteristics of batteries using acoustic signals, includes determining acoustic data at two or more states of charge and determining a reduced acoustic data set representative of the acoustic data at the two or more states of charge. The reduced acoustic data set includes time of flight (TOF) shift, total signal amplitude, or other data points related to the states of charge. Machine learning models use at least the reduced acoustic dataset in conjunction with non-acoustic data such as voltage and temperature for predicting the characteristics of any other independent battery.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Apparatus and method for determining state of change (SOC) and state of health (SOH) of electrical cells

Systems and methods for prediction of state of charge (SOH), state of health (SOC) and other characteristics of batteries using acoustic signals, includes determining acoustic data at two or more states of charge and determining a reduced acoustic data set representative of the acoustic data at the two or more states of charge. The reduced acoustic data set includes time of flight (TOF) shift, total signal amplitude, or other data points related to the states of charge. Machine learning models use at least the reduced acoustic dataset in conjunction with non-acoustic data such as voltage and temperature for predicting the characteristics of any other independent battery.

Steingart, Daniel Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Physical Demand During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Future Artemis missions will require more advanced spacesuits to support exploration and science activities on the Lunar surface. Preparing for these missions requires an understanding of the physical and cognitive demand of performing common surface extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks in a suited partial-gravity environment. This study aims to characterize physical demand during exploration EVA tasks in the Artificial Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) as a function of the task and operational environment itself. Two subjects completed two days of EVA simulations at ARGOS in the Mark III spacesuit offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6G). Metabolic rate (MR) and heart rate (HR) were continuously recorded while subjects completed an end-to-end EVA as well as standalone tasks. Understanding the physical demand to complete exploration EVA tasks will be instrumental to the future success of exploration spacesuit designs and missions. Further work in this study will be needed to characterize MR during exploration EVA tasks, including expanding the subject pool and testing new suit designs.

Taylor E Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Physical Demand during Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Returning to the moon requires many advances in current space technology. One major aspect of this development is a new exploration spacesuit (xEMU). Taking lessons learned from Apollo era suitsand the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the International Space Station (ISS), xEMU will have increased mobility, dust mitigation, headspace, glove fit, and life support capabilities. Artemis astronauts in xEMU will complete a far more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedule than Apolloand ISS. Notably, metabolic rates during Apollo lunar EVA tasks were observed to be up to 50% lower than similar tasks performed in a ground analog environment under simulated partial gravity with newer suits. Therefore, understanding the physical demands of lunar surface exploration operations is criticalto ensuring best outcomes operating within the constraints of xEMU and planning for exploration EVA activities. This study utilized the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the lunar environment and continuously offload subjects to lunar gravity. Two male subjects completed two days of EVAs wearing the pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing suit fit and mobility checks, as well as simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverse tasks in an end-to-end EVA (E2E) task block and standalone (SA) task blocks. We recorded continuous values of metabolic rate (MR) and heart rate (HR) to assess physical demand. During the E2E task block, subjects did not rest between tasks to simulate continuous effort from task to task, as in real EVAs. In comparison, subjects had a 5-minute break after each SA task block to allow for the metabolic rate and heart rate to return to baseline.MR values were categorized as low (≤ 700 BTU/hr), medium (700-1000 BTU/HR), and high (≥ 1000 BTU/hr), while HR values were categorized as low (≤150) and high (>150). During the 16 tasks in the E2E block, subjects averaged low MR in 6% of tasks, medium MR in 47% of tasks, and high MR in 47% of tasks. While MR was consistent between subjects, Subject 1 averaged low HR for 100% of these tasks, while Subject 2 averaged low HR in 44% of tasks. During the 23 tasks in the SA task blocks, subjects averaged low MR in 26% of tasks, medium MR in 52% of tasks, and high MR in 22% of tasks. Again, HR was different between subjects, with subject 1 averaging low HR in 100% of these tasks while subject 2 averaged low HR in 70%. Across all tasks in this study, subjects reached maximum MR and HR values during a 500m traverse at 30% grade in the E2E block (subject 1: 1747 BTU/hr, 150 BPM; subject 2: 1656 BTU/hr, 177 BPM).Understanding the physical demand to complete exploration EVA tasks will be instrumental to the future success of exploration spacesuit designs and missions. Further work in this study will be needed to characterize MR during exploration EVA tasks, including expanding the subject pool and testing new suit designs.

Taylor E Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of an Inertial Sensor-based Methodology for Spacesuited Geology Task Assessments during Simulated Lunar Extravehicular Activities

Lunar surface exploration during Artemis missions will require the specific skill set of geology sampling. Apollo astronauts had extensive training and used specialized tools to collect lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand, and dust. The inflexibility of the pressurized Apollo spacesuits forced sampling to be taken at a standstill posture. However, new exploration spacesuits are expected to incorporate advanced materials and joint bearings, allowing for greater mobility and a wider range of functional postures. Thus, science and exploration during Artemis missions will likely involve a variety of standing, squatting, and kneeling postures. In preparation for future lunar exploration missions, NASA provides geologic training to astronauts and other mission personnel. This professional training with a spacesuit in simulated lunar environments will enhance performance and reduce risk of injury to astronauts on the lunar surface. However, anecdotally, untrained or newly trained people wearing prototype planetary spacesuits have been observed to performing motions differently than a trained geologist would when conducting the same geology sampling tasks. Therefore, a tool for evaluating geology postures at extravehicular activity (EVA) training facilities becomes required. In this paper, we introduce a novel inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based method of geology task assessments in spacesuited conditions during simulated lunar EVAs. As a case study, two subjects (one geologist and one non-geologist) participated and donned the Mark III prototype planetary spacesuit during offloading with the spreader bar gimbal in NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS). For automated geology task assessments, the spacesuit was instrumented with three wireless IMUs (APDM Opal, OR, USA): one on the chest and one each on the left and right ankle bearings. Then subjects performed geology tasks using various tools (rake, trench, hammer chisel, scoop, and drive tube) for 45 minutes each. The chest IMU measured the torso tilt angle in the sagittal plane. We used an ensemble learning method with the ankle IMUs to discriminate between standing and kneeling activities. IMU data were processed using custom MATLAB (Mathworks, MA, USA) software. In our case study, the developed method was able to discriminate differences in standing and kneeling activity levels between subjects who were all highly experienced with spacesuited testing. Our preliminary data showed one subject maintained the constant and lower range of the upper body tilt angle while both standing and kneeling, while the other subject showed more variation of the upper body tilt angle and preferred bending the upper body rather than changing from standing to kneeling posture and vice versa. While geology experience may be a factor, these results need further investigation as suit sizing and ARGOS offloading configurations have been proven to have a significant influence on suited ARGOS tasks. Also, more subjects will be needed to complete these tasks for validation. IMU-based geology task assessments can provide useful information for geology training programs. Additionally, our IMU-based posture analysis can provide new insights into how to evaluate spacesuited geology task characteristics of astronauts during simulated lunar EVAs.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Instrumented Walking and Turning Test to Evaluate Suited Gait Dynamics and Performance in Extravehicular Activity Training Environments

Background and aims: Walking will be required for many exploration tasks on the Moon during the Artemis program. Walking in a straight line on the confined floorspace of a testing area, and repetitive treadmill walking that requires no change in direction may not adequately reflect the balance and coordination required during ambulation. Also, performance of turning maneuvers may be affected differently in different extravehicular activity (EVA) training facilities that simulate partial gravity. For example, the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) simulates lunar gravity by adding weight to underwater subjects to alter buoyancy and achieve the equivalent ground reaction force of 1/6 of Earth’s gravity (1/6G), whereas the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) uses a computer controlled overhead suspension system programmed to continuously offload a percentage of a subject’s weight to simulate 1/6G. The degree to which dynamic movements such as turning are comparable across these EVA training facilities has not yet been evaluated. The instrumented gait test helps NASA scientists and engineers evaluate gait dynamics and performance in suited conditions, and this test demonstrates the unique characteristics and limitations of EVA training facilities. We developed an instrumented walking and turning test using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and conducted the test at NASA’s EVA training facilities. Results were used to compare suited walking and turning characteristics in the ARGOS and the NBL. Methods: Subjects donned the Mark III space suit during offloading with the ARGOS spreader bar gimbal and donned the Z2.5 space suit while underwater in the NBL with weights and floatation added to achieve realistic suit center of gravity. The test team securely attached three Opal (APDM, OR, USA) wireless IMUs on the space suit for each test run: one on the middle of the hard upper torso, and one on the left and on the right ankle bearings. During the NBL tests, the IMUs were encased in a waterproof housing (GoPro) with foam added to create a tighter fit. At both testing facilities, 6.3 m x 1.0 m (LxW) walking lines were marked, and a cone for turning or walking around was located at the end of the walking path with another line on the other side of the cone to indicate the stopping point after walking around the cone. Under simulated 1/6G, subjects began by standing at the marked line with their arms folded across the chest, they then walked at a preferred speed along the straight walking path until they reached the end, turned 180 degrees around the cone, and finally stopped at the marked stopping point. All IMU data recorded during testing were automatically saved to the internal memory. Then, raw IMU signals were processed using custom MATLAB (Mathworks, MA, USA) code to compare gait parameters during both the walking and the turning components of the task. These parameters included time (s), speed (m/s for walking and rad/s for turning), step number (n) and walk:turn time ratio (% time spent straight walking versus turning). Results: Less time, faster gait, fewer steps, and higher walk:turn ratio during both walking and turning components were exhibited during tests performed at the ARGOS versus those performed at the NBL. During the NBL tests, the slower walking speed continued at the same rate throughout a U-shape turn. During the ARGOS tests, the subjects performed shorter and tighter turns at 4 times the speed of the NBL turns because they walked 30% faster and the vertical offloading system gave them more support. Conclusion: Our data show that the differences in walking and turning parameters during the NBL tests may be due to the high viscosity in the water environment where the motion of the lower limbs was slow and did not reach full flexion and extension. These tests improve the current knowledge of testing environments in preparation for EVAs on the lunar surface.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗