Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Early Artemis”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections

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

S Faragalla↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Beyond BioSentinel: Iterative Development of Automated Microfluidics

NASA Ames has flown a series of Bio-CubeSats that performed biology experiments supported by automated fluidic systems. Since Genesat-1 in 2006, these payloads have increased in complexity and functionality, building upon previous successes, and applying lessons learned. BioSentinel was the most recent of this series, launched into heliocentric orbit onboard Artemis-1 in 2022. This presentation will discuss how the fluidic technology developed for these Bio-CubeSat missions, including the multi-layer polycarbonate manifolds at the heart of the BioSentinel BioSensor, have spurred the development of several additional projects. Most directly is the modified BioSensor that will be a part of LEIA, which will perform its Lunar biology experiment onboard a Commercial Lunar Payload Services lander. Several search-for-life manifolds have been designed to prepare samples from icy moons for downstream analyses. Two early career Polaris projects are developing fluidics to perform genetic sequencing on samples from multigenerational cell culture and to extract and quantify target miRNAs to support astronaut radiation health assessment. Improving the readiness of these systems has been accelerated by adopting the established flight heritage and microgravity-compatibility of the Bio-CubeSat fluidic hardware and designs, while focusing development efforts on the integration of novel functionalities and components.

microfluidics↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

Notional Habitat Science Outfitting for a Lunar Surface Habitat or Mars Transit Habitat

Science outfitting is often given insufficient treatment in the development of early conceptual studies for lunar surface habitats. In some cases, only control masses and volumes are used as placeholders. In others, one science discipline may be given detailed treatment while others are largely ignored. It is not unheard of for science outfitting to be entirely forgotten in initial concept layouts. This is exacerbated by the reality that spacecraft design studies are often initiated long before science objectives have been established for any given human spaceflight destination. When those objectives later emerge, they can be difficult to accommodate if sizing studies did not allocate sufficient resources for them. A notional science outfitting can be created for virtually any human exploration habitat, however, utilizing data created by the International Space Station and Constellation programs. Biology, human research, physics, and geology science laboratories and a general-purpose work area for a lunar surface habitat will be derived using equipment identified by the Constellation-era Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group (OSEWG) or flown on the International Space Station. Early science outfitting definition and inclusion in surface habitat sizing is critical for developing an exploration architecture that meets science needs. The mass, volume, power, and use cases associated with these notional laboratories impacts all of the habitat subsystems, habitat dimensions, hatch dimensions, logistics operations, launch vehicles and landers.

Lunar Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In Space Manufacturing and Extraterrestrial Construction: How Did We Get Here?Where Are We? Where Should We Be Going? THE CHALLENGE: Will We Be Ready?

NASA has held multiple workshops and sought inputs from a broad spectrum of sources, including international partners, other space agencies, industry, large and small businesses, academia, and private citizens to develop its Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives. The goals and objectives set forth in the resulting documents are “designed to achieve the vision to create a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system.” The objectives were categorized into four distinct tracks: Operations, Infrastructure, Transportation and Habitation, and Science. In addition, common themes across the objectives were captured under Recurring Tenets. Within the Infrastructure category, several objectives directly address the need for manufacturing and construction on the lunar surface to support continuous human lunar presence and a robust lunar economy. In exploring the vision for creation of on-demand infrastructure on the lunar surface and beyond, this presentation will examine the development of these capabilities, starting in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, up to the current state, and offer a perspective on the challenges facing operational implementation of these technologies. In the early 2000’s, the destination was the Moon. The International Space Station (ISS) was to be the test bed for demonstration of in space manufacturing technologies. Additive construction was in its infancy. These pioneering initiatives, having begun primarily under NASA’s Office of Biological and Physical Research In Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFAR) Project, were short-lived. It was not until the early 2010’s that in space manufacturing and later extraterrestrial construction experienced renewed interest and support. At this time, the destination was Mars. This period saw the initial in space additive manufacturing experiments on the ISS, creation of a roadmap for development of in space manufacturing technologies, and development of additive construction systems for terrestrial use at scale. The period also included NASA’s 3D Printed Mars Habitat Centennial Challenge, which catalyzed interest in extraterrestrial construction. With NASA’s announcement of the intention to return to the Moon, and the subsequent release of the Artemis Accords in 2020, and the commensurate Moon to Mars Strategy, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate initiated the Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative (LSII). The LSII has spurred technology development and maturation efforts across a spectrum of capabilities that would be needed to live on the lunar surface. The presentation will provide an overview of current technology developments in the areas of in space manufacturing and extraterrestrial construction. Looking forward from the current state, a perspective will be offered on capabilities that are still needed to “institutionalize” in space manufacturing and extraterrestrial construction to achieve the vision of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy. Finally, a challenge will be posed to the community to accelerate the development of these capabilities. When the explorers of the future need these enabling capabilities, will they be ready?

Raymond G Clinton Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Affordable Exploration of Mars: Recommendations from a Community Workshop on Sustainable Initial Human Missions

There is a growing consensus that within two decades initial human missions to Mars are affordable under plausible budget assumptions and with sustained international participation. In response to this idea, a distinguished group of experts from the Mars exploration stakeholder communities attended the "Affording Mars" workshop at George Washington University in December, 2013. Participants reviewed and discussed scenarios for affordable and sustainable human and robotic exploration of Mars, the role of the International Space Station over the coming decade as the essential early step toward humans to Mars, possible "bridge" missions in the 2020s, key capabilities required for affordable initial missions, international partnerships, and a usable definition of affordability and sustainability. We report here the findings, observations, and recommendations that were agreed to at that workshop.

Community↗
NASA NTRS2020

Model Validation for Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) with Stowage

The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) was a collaboration between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace to develop an expandable habitat technology that could be used for future space exploration missions such as the Artemis program. On April 26, 2016, the BEAM was launched and berthed to the International Space Station (ISS) on the aft port of Node 3. After the originally planned two-year mission life, BEAM was approved for use as a stowage module for a 109-cargotransfer bag equivalent (CTBE) to alleviate stowage limitations onboard the ISS. The present work builds on the previous 2017 model validation to flight data that demonstrated that BEAM could generally accommodate cargo stowage without adversely affecting BEAM thermal control, primarily for condensation management. Once the stowage was configured in early 2019, model validation efforts resumed. The thermal model revisions included the CTBE stowage and updated CFD-derived heat transfer coefficients for various intra-module ventilation (IMV) flow rates. The coefficients were provided by the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (EC) at NASA JSC and Jacobs Technology. The model is now revalidated and able to predict minimum temperatures with good agreement to flight temperatures (within 1 °C) for both historic and recurring minimum values. Additionally, the model is partially validated for reduced flow rates. With this model, the team was able to provide new flight rule recommendations for condensation and IMV operations management.

Sydney Taylor↗
NASA NTRS2020

Apollo to Artemis: Mining 50-Year Old Records to Inform Future Human Lunar Landing Systems

Under the Artemis lunar exploration program, NASA is committed to landing American astronauts on the moon by 2024. While NASA’s new Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule will carry astronauts from Earth to the Gateway, the human lunar landing system has not yet been fully defined. As in the Apollo program, there are concerns for vehicle weight and internal volume such that seats may not be desirable, and standing during lunar descent and ascent may be a preferred engineering solution. With such a design, astronauts will experience +GZ (head-to-foot) accelerations during capsule accelerations, and it is unclear whether spaceflight deconditioned astronauts can tolerate these. Apollo astronauts stood during lunar descent and ascent, and the data contained in the early program records for those missions represent a unique resource that may provide insights to the cardiovascular stress associated with this human landing system design.

Petersen, D.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Catalog of lunar and Mars science payloads

This catalog collects and describes science payloads considered for future robotic and human exploration missions to the Moon and Mars. The science disciplines included are geosciences, meteorology, space physics, astronomy and astrophysics, life sciences, in-situ resource utilization, and robotic science. Science payload data is helpful for mission scientists and engineers developing reference architectures and detailed descriptions of mission organizations. One early step in advanced planning is formulating the science questions for each mission and identifying the instrumentation required to address these questions. The next critical element is to establish and quantify the supporting infrastructure required to deliver, emplace, operate, and maintain the science experiments with human crews or robots. This requires a comprehensive collection of up-to-date science payload information--hence the birth of this catalog. Divided into lunar and Mars sections, the catalog describes the physical characteristics of science instruments in terms of mass, volume, power and data requirements, mode of deployment and operation, maintenance needs, and technological readiness. It includes descriptions of science payloads for specific missions that have been studied in the last two years: the Scout Program, the Artemis Program, the First Lunar Outpost, and the Mars Exploration Program.

Budden, Nancy Ann↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of the State of Communication Delay Research in Preparation for Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

NASA’s mission-operations paradigm, established during Project Mercury and minimally evolving through the Apollo Program, Space Shuttle Program, and ISS missions, has primarily depended on real-time support from a ground team of experts. This ground team has served as the safety net for crewed spaceflight missions over the past 60 years, managing the combined state of the mission, vehicle, and crew. However, this operational paradigm, which has seen little change in its Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), will face challenges during long-duration exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. Lunar missions may experience one-way communication latencies ranging from 3 to 14 seconds, while Mars missions will encounter up to a 44-minute round-trip latency at a maximum distance from Earth. Communication delays negatively impact the behavioral health and performance of individuals and crews operating across the multi-team space-to-ground system. Previous research indicates that increased isolation and the challenges posed by delayed communication lead to heightened stress, frustration, adverse behavioral symptoms, and reduced individual performance. NASA has investigated the nature and effectiveness of managing this shift in complex operations since early 2000, but additional research is necessary to assess the issues associated with communication latencies and identify effective countermeasures. This work aimed to examine the evidence from 20 years of research on comm delays. We systematically reviewed the past 20 years of communication delay literature, focusing on how this research aligns with relevant, high-priority needs in the HSIA, Team, and BMed Risks. This type of panoramic review has not been done since 2013; a current, aggregated picture of what has been studied and how is needed to inform additional studies and mitigation development. Additional perspectives were gained from interviews with the research participants, operations experts, and communication delay researchers. Results from this effort will help characterize the risk posed by communication latency for upcoming Artemis missions and point toward potential mitigations. The final results will be presented. For the literature review, we formed a search term seed set drawing from languages used in two papers representative of the previous state of knowledge and supplemented it with additional search terms. We conducted literature searches on Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science and searched NASA project archives for output from NASA-sponsored research. This search yielded 150 papers, of which 48 were relevant. SME interviews provided perspective on key communication delay issues and concerns and what is being worked on to mitigate those issues. Preliminary results of the literature review have been presented. Final results to be presented include the results of the literature review and findings from the interviews.

literature review↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Human Lunar Landing Strategy

In early 2020, NASA's Human Landing System Program made awards to a set of American companies to compete for the design, delivery and demonstration of an integrated human landing system to land the next Americans near the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Awards were made utilizing the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement procurement mechanism and kicked off a seven-month Certification Baseline Review, leading up to a Continuation Review and possible down-select by NASA at the end of 2020. This paper discusses the work that has been done thus far for the rapid development of a human landing system to safely carry the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. It will also provide a preview of the work that remains ahead for the program. Keywords: Artemis, Human Landing System, Mars, Moon, Propulsion

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Navigation Performance of the BioSentinel Deep Space CubeSat Mission

The BioSentinel mission was recently launched aboard the SLS launch vehicle (LV) as part of the Artemis- 1 campaign. The BioSentinel navigation team successfully tracked and guided the spacecraft through a lunar gravity assist to its destination Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit. This 6U CubeSat carries live yeast cells to analyze the effects of radiation at large distances from Earth, becoming the first biological payload in Deep Space. Prelaunch activities included mission design updates, orbit determination rehearsals and the development of a tracking schedule in coordination with the Artemis-1 payload office and the Deep Space Network (DSN). An important influence on the trajectories of Artemis I secondaries was the uncertainty associated with deployment from the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS), the upper stage of the SLS LV. The ICPS was rotating at a rate of 1 rpm; there was also an uncertainty in the spin axis attitude, which translated into an unknown clock angle of deployment. The variability in this angle and magnitude of deployment implied the existence of a non-negligible risk of a lunar impact, which was evaluated for various potential launch dates. We present the results of Monte Carlo analyses and compute the pertinent maneuvers to avoid it. In addition, we present a comparison with the actual deployment once the mission launched by reconstructing our trajectory with tracking data. On November 16th 2022 BioSentinel successfully deployed from ICPS and the navigation team started to receive 2-way Doppler and Sequential Ranging data from the DSN. We processed early data to try to obtain a first ephemeris using Initial Orbit Determination (IOD) methods such as the least squares. Soon after deployment, the spacecraft was tumbling and entered safe mode, creating a period where the tracking data were sparse. The mission team recovered the spacecraft and after four tracking passes, we solved for a first ephemeris that was sent to the DSN for better tracking of the spacecraft. After propagating this first ephemeris solution, we determined that we avoided impact with a margin of a few hundred km from the lunar surface. More tracking data over the next few days (from DSN as well as ESA antennas) allowed for a more refined orbit solution predicting a periselene altitude of 406 km and a lunar eclipse lasting 36.5 minutes. Therefore, BioSentinel operators aborted any correction maneuvers. This periselene altitude also gave us the necessary energy to achieve a heliocentric orbit. The next challenge was due to the necessary adjustments in our orbit determination method due to the large energy boost resulting from the lunar flyby. After a series of tracking passes we were able to get a nominal solution that resulted into a stable trajectory. This paper discusses in detail the navigation performance using the X-band IRIS transponder, as well as the challenges and lessons learned prior to and during this deep space, CubeSat mission.

Andres Dono Perez↗
NASA NTRS2013

Liaison-Supplemented Navigation of a Crewed Vehicle in a Lunar Halo Orbit

This paper offers an early examination of the challenges of navigating a crewed vehicle, with all of the associated unmodeled accelerations that arise from the crew's activities, in an orbit about the Earth-Moon L2 point. The combination of the unstable nature of libration orbits with the lack of acceleration knowledge makes the station keeping strategy challenging. It is found that a combination of ground tracking and satellite-to-satellite tracking produces the most favorable navigation accuracy. This paper examines the costs and benefits of applying LiAISON (Linked Autonomous Interplanetary Satellite Orbit Navigation) to a crewed mission in an unstable L2 orbit.

ARTEMIS↗
NASA NTRS2022

Draft LunaNet Interoperability Specification

This document, along with its companion documents, provides the basis for a comprehensive set of requirements for operation of a lunar communications and navigation network capable of interoperating with other networks compliant with the Lunar Network (LunaNet). LunaNet will include Earth ground stations and orbiting spacecraft and will provide services to human exploration, lunar science, and space technology missions. LunaNet will start with a simple architecture of a few nodes to meet the needs of the early missions and evolve to meet the growing needs of a sustained lunar presence. All relay network services are not expected to be met by a single spacecraft, or node. The expectation is that the needs of users will be met through a combination of interoperable systems provided by NASA, international partners, and commercial providers. Interoperability across this network-of-networks can be achieved through negotiation of mutually-agreed-upon standards that will be reflected in this document and in the specifications defined by other participants in the cooperative lunar network. This document was written and reviewed by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA).

LunaNet↗
NASA NTRS2022

Draft LunaNet Interoperability Specification

This document, along with its companion documents, provides the basis for a comprehensive set of requirements for operation of a lunar communications and navigation network capable of interoperating with other networks compliant with the Lunar Network (LunaNet). LunaNet will include Earth ground stations and orbiting spacecraft and will provide services to human exploration, lunar science, and space technology missions. LunaNet will start with a simple architecture of a few nodes to meet the needs of the early missions and evolve to meet the growing needs of a sustained lunar presence. All relay network services are not expected to be met by a single spacecraft, or node. The expectation is that the needs of users will be met through a combination of interoperable systems provided by NASA, international partners, and commercial providers. Interoperability across this network-of-networks can be achieved through negotiation of mutually-agreed-upon standards that will be reflected in this document and in the specifications defined by other participants in the cooperative lunar network. This document was written and reviewed by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA).

LunaNet↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Interest in 3GPP Mobile Telecommunications Protocols for Near Earth Space and the Lunar Surface

In the next several years, NASA intends to return astronauts to the Moon through the Artemis Program. Under Artemis, NASA plans to collaborate with commercial and international partners to establish a long-term presence on the Moon. Near-term Artemis missions will be analogous but much more sophisticated versions of the last couple of Apollo missions. For example, the first area expected to be explored by an Artemis mission is near the south pole as opposed to the mid-latitudes visited by the Apollo astronauts, which makes direct communications with Earth more complicated. Lunar infrastructure will eventually be built over time by many organizations, public and private, to support sustained human exploration, science, and industrial activities on the Moon. A robust lunar communications and navigation infrastructure will be essential to realizing this long-term vision. Meanwhile, on Earth, major advances are being made as5G mobile telecommunications rollout across the globe. Furthermore, the 3rdGeneration Partnership Project (3GPP) is beginning to define future 6G capabilities. NASA envisions a lunar communications and navigation network with capabilities similar to those of communication networks we enjoy here on Earth. Building such a network will require participation by many organizations. NASA’s Tipping Point program seeks industry-developed space technologies that can both foster commercial space capabilities and benefit future NASA missions. This paper provides an overview of NASA’s interest in 3GPPanddescribescurrent work based on 3GPP standards within NASA or funded by NASA, such as Nokia’s upcoming Tipping Point demonstration of 4G/LTE on the lunar surface in early 2023.

Bernard L Edwards↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Preliminary Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for Artemis IV

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in- mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. METHODOLOGY: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for the Artemis IV mission. Artemis IV is currently scheduled for 2026 and will visit the Gateway space station in lunar orbit prior to the second lunar landing of the Artemis program. The baseline Artemis IV mission that was modeled was 28 days in duration with phases including Orion outbound, 4 days on the Gateway space station in lunar orbit, 2 crew on the surface of the Moon for approximately one week, an additional 5 days on Gateway, and then return to Earth. This baseline was compared to two alternative 34-day design reference missions (DRMs) that shifted the lunar sortie earlier or later in the mission profile. Assumptions included 2 female and 2 male crew and a notional medical system mass of 25 kg. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk. RESULTS: All three DRMs had very low probability of LOCL from medical conditions, primarily due to short duration. RTDC was also similar across the DRMs. In contrast, TTL was higher in the early lunar sortie DRM due to earlier occurrence of EVA-related medical conditions. Taken as a whole, there was no clinically significant difference in medical risk across the three missions. Results for clinical capabilities and an example medical equipment list will be discussed but were similar across DRMs.

D Hilmers↗
NASA NTRS2024

Preliminary Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for Late Artemis Missions

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in- mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. METHODOLOGY: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for the Artemis IV mission. Artemis IV is currently scheduled for 2026 and will visit the Gateway space station in lunar orbit prior to the second lunar landing of the Artemis program. The baseline Artemis IV mission that was modeled was 28 days in duration with phases including Orion outbound, 4 days on the Gateway space station in lunar orbit, 2 crew on the surface of the Moon for approximately one week, an additional 5 days on Gateway, and then return to Earth. This baseline was compared to two alternative 34-day design reference missions (DRMs) that shifted the lunar sortie earlier or later in the mission profile. Assumptions included 2 female and 2 male crew and a notional medical system mass of 25 kg. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk. RESULTS: All three DRMs had very low probability of LOCL from medical conditions, primarily due to short duration. RTDC was also similar across the DRMs. In contrast, TTL was higher in the early lunar sortie DRM due to earlier occurrence of EVA-related medical conditions. Taken as a whole, there was no clinically significant difference in medical risk across the three missions. Results for clinical capabilities and an example medical equipment list will be discussed but were similar across DRMs.

D. Hilmers↗