Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Lunar Architecture Team”

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 NTRS2014

Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Vertical Cylinder Habitat

NASA's Constellation Architecture Team defined an outpost scenario optimized for intensive mobility that uses small, highly mobile pressurized rovers supported by portable habitat modules that can be carried between locations of interest on the lunar surface. A compact vertical cylinder characterizes the habitat concept, where the large diameter maximizes usable flat floor area optimized for a gravity environment and allows for efficient internal layout. The module was sized to fit into payload fairings for the Constellation Ares V launch vehicle, and optimized for surface transport carried by the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) mobility system. Launch and other loads are carried through the barrel to a top and bottom truss that interfaces with a structural support unit (SSU). The SSU contains self-leveling feet and docking interfaces for Tri-ATHLETE grasping and heavy lift. A pressurized module needed to be created that was appropriate for the lunar environment, could be easily relocated to new locations, and could be docked together in multiples for expanding pressurized volume in a lunar outpost. It was determined that horizontally oriented pressure vessels did not optimize floor area, which takes advantage of the gravity vector for full use. Hybrid hard-inflatable habitats added an unproven degree of complexity that may eventually be worked out. Other versions of vertically oriented pressure vessels were either too big, bulky, or did not optimize floor area. The purpose of the HDU vertical habitat module is to provide pressurized units that can be docked together in a modular way for lunar outpost pressurized volume expansion, and allow for other vehicles, rovers, and modules to be attached to the outpost to allow for IVA (intra-vehicular activity) transfer between them. The module is a vertically oriented cylinder with a large radius to allow for maximal floor area and use of volume. The modular, 5- m-diameter HDU vertical habitat module consists of a 2-m-high barrel with 0.6-mhigh end domes forming the 56-cubicmeter pressure vessel, and a 19-squaremeter floor area. The module has up to four docking ports located orthogonally from each other around the perimeter, and up to one docking port each on the top or bottom end domes. In addition, the module has mounting trusses top and bottom for equipment, and to allow docking with the ATHLETE mobility system. Novel or unique features of the HDU vertical habitat module include the nodelike function with multiple pressure hatches for docking with other versions of itself and other modules and vehicles; the capacity to be carried by an ATHLETE mobility system; and the ability to attach inflatable 'attic' domes to the top for additional pressurized volume.

Howe, Alan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Steps: Laying the Groundwork for Bundle Protocol v7

Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) is a networking model and protocol suite that extends the terrestrial internet to the challenging communication environments of space. These environments are typically subject to frequent disruptions, which can cause delays or errors. DTN protects data transmission by wrapping data into bundles (similar to Internet Protocol packets), storing them until a connection can be established between two nodes (similar to terrestrial routers or computers), and forwarding them to their destinations. Bundle Protocol (BP) is responsible for generating those bundles and creates the transport layer of DTN, much like how Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) create the transport layer of the Internet Protocol. BPv6 is the current, accepted version of the Bundle Protocol standard. However, recent missions and test implementations have revealed missing components and areas for improvement in the standard. Using lessons learned from NASA missions and gathering inspiration from the Internet Protocol, BPv7 is intended to be a more robust Bundle Protocol that improves upon its predecessor and increases the technology readiness level of the DTN architecture. The DTN Standard Interface Design team, a sub-team of the DTN Infusion Project at the Goddard Space Flight Center, worked to create a dictionary of terms for bundle components and functional decomposition of the protocol. These efforts aided in the standardization of BP interfaces, something missing from BPv6, and supported parallel network management and configuration work. This standardization will ultimately contribute to LunaNet (a lunar communications and navigation architecture that will bring networking, positioning, navigation, timing and science services to the Moon), the Solar System Internet (SSI), and expand crewed and uncrewed space exploration opportunities.

DTN↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Steps: Laying the Groundwork for Bundle Protocol v7

Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) is a networking model and protocol suite that extends the terrestrial internet to the challenging communication environments of space. These environments are typically subject to frequent disruptions, which can cause delays or errors. DTN protects data transmission by wrapping data into bundles (similar to Internet Protocol packets), storing them until a connection can be established between two nodes (similar to terrestrial routers or computers), and forwarding them to their destinations. Bundle Protocol (BP) is responsible for generating those bundles and creates the transport layer of DTN, much like how Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) create the transport layer of the Internet Protocol. BPv6 is the current, accepted version of the Bundle Protocol standard. However, recent missions and test implementations have revealed missing components and areas for improvement in the standard. Using lessons learned from NASA missions and gathering inspiration from the Internet Protocol, BPv7 is intended to be a more robust Bundle Protocol that improves upon its predecessor and increases the technology readiness level of the DTN architecture. The DTN Standard Interface Design team, a sub-team of the DTN Infusion Project at the Goddard Space Flight Center, worked to create a dictionary of terms for bundle components and functional decomposition of the protocol. These efforts aided in the standardization of BP interfaces, something missing from BPv6, and supported parallel network management and configuration work. This standardization will ultimately contribute to LunaNet (a lunar communications and navigation architecture that will bring networking, positioning, navigation, timing and science services to the Moon), the Solar System Internet (SSI), and expand crewed and uncrewed space exploration opportunities.

dtn↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Space Transportation Sensitivity to Roundtrip Mission Duration and Mars Vicinity Stay Time

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate has been developing architecture concepts for human missions to Mars in alignment with the agency’s Moon-to-Mars Strategy & Objectives. One of the key components of a human Mars mission is the in-space transportation system that delivers crew and cargo to Mars vicinity and returns the crew safely back to Earth. The Mars Architecture Team within ESDMD’s Strategy and Architecture Office has been evaluating multiple in-space transportation options to satisfy this functional need. The first step of this evaluation is to understand key architectural drivers for in-space transportation systems. Lunar and Mars missions have unique challenges, and systems designed for one may not be directly applicable to the other as they have different energy and mission needs. In addition, the time and distance for a Mars mission will be drastically different from the historical and current programs, requiring a new paradigm for mission architects. This paper investigates the impact of mission duration on a variety of different transportation options. As mission duration decreases, the total energy required to perform a roundtrip Mars mission increases exponentially, significantly increasing the required Earth departure mass. Sensitivity analyses of various in-space transportation system concepts were shown in this paper to begin mapping out the in-space transportation trade space. Each of the transportation systems has its own strengths and weaknesses, especially in the context of the continuous mission duration and vicinity stay time trade space. Although mission duration and Mars vicinity stay time may be key architecture drivers from an in-space transportation perspective, the decision of acceptable mission duration cannot be made solely from this perspective. Mission duration also has tangible impacts to crew health and performance, as well as system reliability and other key architecture considerations. The integrated nature of the architecture decision road map will be the primary focus of the Mars Architecture Team in the coming analysis cycle. This in-space transportation analysis will serve as the first guidepost of this critical activity that will guide the Moon-to-Mars Architecture into the humans to Mars segment.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Space Transportation Sensitivity to Roundtrip Mission Duration and Mars Vicinity Stay Time

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate has been developing architecture concepts for human missions to Mars in alignment with the agency’s Moon-to-Mars Strategy & Objectives. One of the key components of a human Mars mission is the in-space transportation system that delivers crew and cargo to Mars vicinity and returns the crew safely back to Earth. The Mars Architecture Team within ESDMD’s Strategy and Architecture Office has been evaluating multiple in-space transportation options to satisfy this functional need. The first step of this evaluation is to understand key architectural drivers for in-space transportation systems. Lunar and Mars missions have unique challenges, and systems designed for one may not be directly applicable to the other as they have different energy and mission needs. In addition, the time and distance for a Mars mission will be drastically different from the historical and current programs, requiring a new paradigm for mission architects. This paper investigates the impact of mission duration on a variety of different transportation options. As mission duration decreases, the total energy required to perform a roundtrip Mars mission increases exponentially, significantly increasing the required Earth departure mass. Sensitivity analyses of various in-space transportation system concepts were shown in this paper to begin mapping out the in-space transportation trade space. Each of the transportation systems has its own strengths and weaknesses, especially in the context of the continuous mission duration and vicinity stay time trade space. Although mission duration and Mars vicinity stay time may be key architecture drivers from an in-space transportation perspective, the decision of acceptable mission duration cannot be made solely from this perspective. Mission duration also has tangible impacts to crew health and performance, as well as system reliability and other key architecture considerations. The integrated nature of the architecture decision road map will be the primary focus of the Mars Architecture Team in the coming analysis cycle. This in-space transportation analysis will serve as the first guidepost of this critical activity that will guide the Moon-to-Mars Architecture into the humans to Mars segment.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗
NASA NTRS2002

Advanced Spacecraft Designs in Support of Human Missions to Earth's Neighborhood

NASA's strategic planning for technology investment draws on engineering studies of potential future missions. A number of hypothetical mission architectures have been studied. A recent study completed by The NASA/JSC Advanced Design Team addresses one such possible architecture strategy for missions to the moon. This conceptual study presents an overview of each of the spacecraft elements that would enable such missions. These elements include an orbiting lunar outpost at lunar L1 called the Gateway, a lunar transfer vehicle (LTV) which ferries a crew of four from the ISS to the Gateway, a lunar lander which ferries the crew from the Gateway to the lunar surface, and a one-way lunar habitat lander capable of supporting the crew for 30 days. Other supporting elements of this architecture discussed below include the LTV kickstage, a solar-electric propulsion (SEP) stage, and a logistics lander capable of re-supplying the 30-day habitat lander and bringing other payloads totaling 10.3 mt in support of surface mission activities. Launch vehicle infrastructure to low-earth orbit includes the Space Shuttle, which brings up the LTV and crew, and the Delta-IV Heavy expendable launch vehicle which launches the landers, kickstage, and SEP.

Fletcher, David↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Crew Launch Vehicle Overview

The US. Vision for Space Exploration, announced January 2004, outlines the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) strategic goals and objectives. These include: 1) Flying the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. 2) Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. 3) Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration. 4) Completing the International Space Station (ISS) in a manner consistent with international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. 5) Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. 6) Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. Following the confirmation of the new NASA Administrator in April 2005, the Agency commissioned a team of aerospace subject matter experts from government and industry to perform the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which provided in-depth information for selecting the follow-on launch vehicle designs to enable these goals, The ESAS team analyzed a number of potential launch systems, with a focus on: (1) a human-rated launch vehicle for crew transport and (2) a heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) to carry cargo. After several months of intense study utilizing technical performance, budget, and schedule objectives, the results showed that the optimum architecture to meet the challenge of safe, reliable crew transport is a two-stage variant of the Space Shuttle propulsion system - utilizing the reusable Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) as the first stage, along with a new upper stage that uses a derivative of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine to deliver 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit. The CEV that this new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) lofts into space early next decade will initially ferry astronauts to the Space Station and be capable of carrying crews back to lunar orbit and of supporting missions to Mars orbit. The HLLV system will utilize the Shuttle External Tank combined with SRBs. The focus of this paper is on the CLV system, giving an overview of plans and progress to date.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

International Coordination and Cooperation on LunaNet Spectrum

LunaNet is planned to be the network of networks operated by a set of cooperating organizations to provide interoperable Communications, networking, Position, Navigation, and Timing (CPNT) services to users on and around the Moon based on a framework of mutually agreed-upon standards, protocols, frequency bands and interface requirements. LunaNet follows a service-oriented architecture that is agnostic about the types of organizations that provide services, e.g., government, industry, or academia. LunaNet is open, scalable, resilient, secure, and extensible. To achieve these goals, LunaNet Service Providers (LNSP) must coordinate with each other to define and develop the architecture, to plan initial and evolved capabilities, and to operate their networks. One of the central LunaNet tenets is the use of shared spectrum. For example, the Lunar Augmented Navigation Service (LANS) acts like a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) such as the US Global Positioning System (GPS) or European Galileo but the LNSPs’ contributions to LunaNet must use the same frequency band (2483.5 MHz-2500.0 MHz) and transmit the same waveform synchronized by highly accurate clocks so that Users ‘see’ one virtual network and use the same multilateration algorithm to determine their positions. This necessitates a high degree of spectrum coordination. NASA’s Lunar and Human Spaceflight Spectrum Management Team has been actively supporting development of the LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS), soliciting inputs from spectrum policy and planning experts across NASA, ESA and JAXA. Cislunar spectrum use considerations have been studied and adjudicated within the Space Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG) and inform the ongoing discussion of a lunar communication and navigation architecture within the existing radio regulatory framework of the International Telecommunication Union, leading to the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27). The frequency plan contained in the publicly released draft of the LunaNet Interoperability Specification reflects the initial phase of exploration (roughly to 2030) defining an optimal set of radio frequencies in appropriately allocated services consistent with WRC-23 decisions for use by known or planned CPNT applications, while striving to maximize coexistence and compatibility amongst cislunar systems and other systems within the near-Earth regime (< 2 million km from Earth). Important considerations include: protection of extremely sensitive receive-only radio astronomy systems on the lunar far side, known as the Shielded Zone of the Moon (SZM); compatibility between Direct with Earth (DWE) communications links and links needed to support relay satellites in lunar orbit with their customer systems on orbit or on the lunar surface; compatibility between multiple lunar surface communications systems and capabilities over varied and challenging terrain and distances; as well as ensuring compatibility and interoperability between navigation systems which either leverage Earth-based or in-situ lunar systems. In addition, the lunar CPNT architecture is envisioned to be the basis – with adjustments – of the future Mars CPNT architecture as we expand into the solar system using Interplanetary Networking (IPN). The second phase of lunar spectrum definition will address planned international capabilities for the next decade that will require action at WRC-27 and beyond. This paper will discuss each of these considerations in more depth and how the current LunaNet frequency plan addresses them.

LunaNet↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway at the Crossroads of Sustainable Lunar Exploration

The Gateway Program has made substantial design and development progress toward delivering a small, human-tended lunar space station purposefully designed to enable sustainable human exploration. The Program integrates partners and providers organizationally and physically as part of the spacecraft. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) with the European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT) HALO Lunar Communications System (HLCS) have begun manufacturing the long lead components and will be launched first as a Co-Manifested Vehicle (CMV). The International Habitat (I-Hab) and ESPRIT Refueling Module (ERM) are passing life cycle milestones and include capabilities key for human crewmembers, such as windows, private sleeping quarters, and galley functions. The Logistics Module (LM) may provide a variety of services to Gateway depending on each mission. Requirements for the airlock have been developed, including requests that it support the integrated spacecraft with functions like augmenting heat rejection capabilities, and interfaces with new spacesuits will soon be developed in more detail. As a critical element of the architecture for solar system exploration, Gateway implements key tenets and features of international interoperability standards necessary to operate with multiple visiting vehicles and lunar assets, especially avionics, communications, and docking. Specific choices such as software architecture and standards, power standards, and robotics standards make it possible to utilize heritage or proprietary technology, yet still operate as one spacecraft. Engineering teams are evaluating many possible future missions to be executed at or utilizing the Gateway. The system architecture protects for an evolvable, extensible, and flexible capability. Designing systems robust enough to serve as a cornerstone of exploration activities for decades while remaining adaptable is not without its challenges. The detailed integration activities have revealed challenges and the need to mature key technologies. Refueling is a key component of achieving long life for Gateway, with unique operations to plan, safety concerns to mitigate, and risk reduction activities to conduct to better understand the system. The constraints and impacts of the design of visiting vehicles is also an important concern, with orientation constraints, control of attitude and orbit of the Gateway with docked visiting vehicles. Tradeoffs between robust maintainable systems and lightweight, compact systems must be balanced. Opportunities still exist for adding additional advanced capabilities to increase and extend Gateway’s benefits, such as intravehicular robotics, autonomous Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C), and augmented control propulsion, heat rejection, or other services.

Molly S Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Surface Relay - Mobile: Concept to Provide Relay Links to Surface Assets

At the request of NASA’s Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) program, the Glenn Research Center’s (GRC) Compass concurrent engineering team developed a conceptual design of a Lunar Surface Relay- Mobile (LSR-M) system to provide a variety of surface and relay communication links in support of future Artemis sorties. The team determined that a mobile asset, with its ability to relocate to support a variety of surface sites and leverage more hospitable winter locations on the lunar south pole, would be of particular use in the architecture. Following the design of a solar array and battery powered baseline case, a quick look design further investigated adding a multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator (MMRTG) to the system to reduce battery requirements to survive the lunar night and remove the need to relocate to favorable night locations during the lunar winter.

Lunar Surface Relay↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway at the Crossroads of Sustainable Lunar Exploration

The Gateway Program has made substantial design and development progress toward delivering a small, human-tended lunar space station purposefully designed to enable sustainable human exploration. The Program integrates partners and providers organizationally and physically as part of the spacecraft. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) with the European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT) HALO Lunar Communications System (HLCS) have begun manufacturing the long lead components and will be launched first as a Co-Manifested Vehicle (CMV). The International Habitat (I-Hab) and ESPRIT Refueling Module (ERM) are passing life cycle milestones and include capabilities key for human crewmembers, such as windows, private sleeping quarters, and galley functions. The Logistics Module (LM) may provide a variety of services to Gateway depending on each mission. Requirements for the airlock have been developed, including requests that it support the integrated spacecraft with functions like augmenting heat rejection capabilities, and interfaces with new spacesuits will soon be developed in more detail. As a critical element of the architecture for solar system exploration, Gateway implements key tenets and features of international interoperability standards necessary to operate with multiple visiting vehicles and lunar assets, especially avionics, communications, and docking. Specific choices such as software architecture and standards, power standards, and robotics standards make it possible to utilize heritage or proprietary technology, yet still operate as one spacecraft. Engineering teams are evaluating many possible future missions to be executed at or utilizing the Gateway. The system architecture protects for an evolvable, extensible, and flexible capability. Designing systems robust enough to serve as a cornerstone of exploration activities for decades while remaining adaptable is not without its challenges. The detailed integration activities have revealed challenges and the need to mature key technologies. Refueling is a key component of achieving long life for Gateway, with unique operations to plan, safety concerns to mitigate, and risk reduction activities to conduct to better understand the system. The constraints and impacts of the design of visiting vehicles is also an important concern, with orientation constraints, control of attitude and orbit of the Gateway with docked visiting vehicles. Tradeoffs between robust maintainable systems and lightweight, compact systems must be balanced. Opportunities still exist for adding additional advanced capabilities to increase and extend Gateway’s benefits, such as intravehicular robotics, autonomous Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C), and augmented control propulsion, heat rejection, or other services.

Molly S Anderson↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Habitat Demonstration Unit System Integration

The Lunar Surface System Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) will require the project team to integrate a variety of contributions from NASA centers and potential outside collaborators and poses a challenge in integrating these disparate efforts into a cohesive architecture. To accomplish the development of the HDU from conception in June 2009 to rollout for operations in July 2010, the HDU team is using several strategies to mitigate risks and bring the separate efforts together. First, a set of design standards is being developed to define the interfaces between the various systems of HDU and to the payloads, such as the Geology Lab, that those systems will support. Scheduled activities such as early fit-checks and the utilization of a Habitat avionics test bed prior to equipment installation into HDU. A coordinated effort to establish simplified Computer Aided Design standards and the utilization of a modeling and simulation systems will aid in design and integration concept development. Finally, decision processes on the shell development including the assembly sequence and the transportation have been fleshed out early on HDU to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Real-Time Science Decisioning During High Tempo-High Intensity Mission Operations and the Role of Analogs

Introduction: NASA’s VIPER mission presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in length. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions directly impact the manner and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) is required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations. The VST shall provide mission enhancing scientific input to guide rover traverse planning and drill site confirmation and selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)and exploration activities. The VST co-located in the Mission Science Center (MSC) will be responsive to the tactical operational cadence of the Mission Operations Center (MOC) and will provide further strategic and Long-Term Planning (LTP) guidance to the mission. The VIPER Science Operations & Integration(SO&I)team has developed an architecture that is focused on the infusion of science-decisioning into the operational framework and execution cadence of VIPER. NASA analog research has played a significant role in the construction of the VIPER science operations systems. As an example, the SO&I team has led analog missions that have focused on bringing together expertise in the sciences (natural, applied and social) and in operations in service of learning how to build and hold together interdisciplinary work environments and what tools are needed to support high tempo, high intensity integrated decisioning. These experiences have provided an essential foundation of knowledge to the VIPER team. Those analogs that specifically influenced the VIPER science operations construct were identified through a process of comparative analysis to prioritize those that offered relevance in whole or in part, and those that did not. The analog research output that provided extensibility to the VIPER science operations architecture included remote teams of humans and robots in cooperation (synchronous and asynchronous) with simulated earthbound systems, engineering and science teams, and the integrated assembly of tools that supported scientific analysis and data synthesis and provided infrastructure for the remote testing framework. Analogs which included real-time data monitoring, synthesis, visualization and access in a democratized and operationalized manner were of particular interest to the development of the VIPER MSC toolset both in terms of the technology and the processes used to develop the supporting infrastructure. We anticipate that each subsequent mission to the lunar south pole, whether with robots or humans, will be able to optimize science and exploration return by evolving strategies to infuse real-time collaborative science-decisioning. Furthermore, these efforts will result in a foundation for science operations development in support of human-robotic exploration of deep space and Mars. NASA analogs can continue to provide the opportunity to prepare, test and iterate on the operational concepts and tools that will support these ever-expanding space exploration efforts. Our presentation will include an overview of the VIPER Science Operations & Integration development process and specifics on what aspects of analog research have had a significant impact on our work systems.

D S S Lim↗
NASA NTRS2024

A Distributed Simulation Framework Applied to Artemis Analysis, Studies, Integration, and Test

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Artemis Program, a series of missions to return humans to the Moon and explore further than before. To execute the Artemis missions, NASA is collaborating with commercial and international partners to create the necessary infrastructure and logistics plan that will establish a long term presence on the Moon ahead of exploring Mars. NASA and its partners are developing a collection of space and surface systems to support crewed missions to the lunar surface that will provide the mobility, habitation, logistics, and exploration support necessary for Artemis mission successes which includes robust scientific investigations. This paper details the design, capabilities, and uses of the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS) being developed by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) Team to support Artemis architecture studies. ADS utilizes international interoperability standards to connect a collection of independent vehicle and service simulations; these include but are not limited to elements such as rovers, landers, and habitation elements along with services like communications, environment, visualization, and data logging. ADS’s distributed nature allows for the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis elements; this includes efficient scenario modification with the addition or removal of individual simulations representing Artemis elements or services. This capability provides support for the rapid performance of various Artemis mission trade studies exploring alternate configurations. Currently, ADS uses NASA developed simulations for development and testing; however, through the use of international simulation interoperability standards, ADS provides an integration framework to incorporate dissimilar authoritative vendor simulations as Artemis systems mature and vendor simulations become available. Vendor simulations will be able to join ADS and interact with other Artemis elements and vehicles while limiting the exposure of proprietary data. This paper describes the expansion of an existing distributed simulation infrastructure to accommodate a collaborative and dynamic framework for the Artemis Program. This work includes updated federation designs, integration into existing NASA facilities, advancements in visualizations, and advancements in human driven inputs. This paper will also outline recently completed and ongoing support and collaboration with NASA studies and testing, namely results from energetics and Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) studies. The paper concludes with a plan for future developments and facility integration to enable enhanced studies in preparation for a return of humans to the lunar surface.

Artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Capabilities Data Analysis: An Integrated Approach

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is necessary to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for human sustainability on the lunar surface, as well as on eventual missions to send humans to Mars. Guided by Space Policy Directive-1 and through the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis program, the advancement and development of technologies on the lunar surface will be leveraged towards technologies and knowledge needed for humans to successfully and safely go to Mars and return. In order to understand the capability needs for lunar and Mars missions, the Capabilities Integration Team identifies integration approaches and overlaps between missions to develop strategies for advancing key capabilities that support those needs. Since 2013, the Capabilities Integration Team has reached out to subject matter experts, principal technologists, and system capability leadership teams throughout NASA to gather information about the critical technologies and capabilities needed in order to support the lunar and Mars exploration missions. To properly gather this data, the Capabilities Integration Team used a capability-driven approach to identify gaps between the current state of the art and the needs of proposed exploration missions, as well as activities that may close those gaps. These inputs are used to shape technology investment strategies and are incorporated in missions to the lunar and Mars surfaces. Data collected included: gap definitions and identifying information; gap closure information and metrics for success; mapping of gaps to elements of NASA's Artemis program and future exploration architecture. . The data collected, specifically from the technology gap list, has been used to support the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processes, as well as the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Technology Plans. This paper discusses the integration approach used by the Capabilities Integration Team to identify current capability gaps for the Moon to Mars architecture and what capabilities exist or must be developed to support those architecture needs. In addition, this paper also details the performance, gap characterization, current capability gap closure opportunities, and risk impacts towards Artemis, and the overall Moon to Mars architecture.

Gregory Benjamin↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Habitat Demonstration Unit System Integration

The Lunar Surface System Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) will require a project team to integrate a variety of contributions from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers and potential outside collaborators and poses a challenge in integrating these disparate efforts into a cohesive architecture. To accomplish the development of the first version of the HDU, the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM), from conception in June 2009 to rollout for operations in July 2010, the HDU project team is using several strategies to mitigate risks and bring the separate efforts together. First, a set of design standards is being developed to define the interfaces between the various systems of PEM and to the payloads, such as the Geology Laboratory, that those systems will support. Scheduled activities such as early fit-checks and the utilization of a habitat avionics test bed prior to equipment installation into HDU PEM are planned to facilitate the integration process. A coordinated effort to establish simplified Computer Aided Design (CAD) standards and the utilization of a modeling and simulation systems will aid in design and integration concept development. Finally, decision processes on the shell development including the assembly sequence and the transportation have been fleshed out early on HDU design to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations.

Gill, Tracy R.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Space Weather Architecture Options to Support Human and Robotic Deep Space Exploration

Understanding solar energetic particle (SEP) event characteristics is critical to the proper design of human and robotic space missions. This report details a study of operational response time for monitoring space weather for crewed flights, specifically targeting lunar and Mars missions. The NESC assessment team evaluated the required minimum latency for data streams and forecasts that will directly affect mission operations using a 41-year database (i.e., European Space Agency (ESA) Solar Energetic Particle Environment Modeling (SEPEM) RSDv2.0) of SEP events. The database contained 192 SEP events that resulted in a dose increase above background levels. Of those, 10% were “multiple events,” or events that occurred in quick succession. The analysis provides probabilistic values for time to peak flux and dose rate for the duration of each event. This NESC assessment also evaluated the SEP threshold levels for exploration missions to determine the relevant energy range of required proton measurements.

Solar energetic particle↗